Dismissed¶20

Sunita v. State of Hy.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2026CWP/17034/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sunita vs. State of Haryana; CWP-17034-2001 (O&M); D.P.E. (D.P.E. Masters) selection challenge; examination for short listing; advertisement No.2/99 dated 14.11.1999; Annexure P-7; certiorari; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; covered by Jawahar Lal Goyal CWP-15885-2000 decided 23.05.2001; 25 years elapsed; no instructions; dismissed for non-prosecution; Harpreet Singh Brar J.; decision 03.07.2026.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunita Vs State of Hy. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-17034-2001

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

204

¶5

CWP-17034-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2026

Sunita

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶12

Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate with Ms. Jyoti Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Naveen Parmar, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

¶15

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari , for quashing the action of the respondents in holding the examination for short listing and making selection of D.P.E. (D.P.E. Masters) (Annexure P-7) against advertisement No.2/99 dated 14.11.1999. Further prayer has been made to entrust the matter to some independent agency.

¶16

Learned State counsel, at the outset, submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-15885-2000, titled as Jawahar Lal Goyal and others vs. State of Haryana and others , decided on 23.05.2001 , wherein challenge was laid to advertisement No.2/99, which is also under challenge in the present writ petition. As

¶17

MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.03 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

¶18

CWP-17034-2001 2

¶19

such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. He further submits more than 25 years have elapsed since the institution of the present writ petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads no instructions. Dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶21

		(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
03.07.2026 yakub
	Whether speaking/reas	oned: Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶22

MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.03 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

Sunita v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunita v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Sihag Vs Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and Another

Komal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Naresh Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Another

Indu Grover Vs Ccs, Haryana Agricultural University, Hi

Kaushal Raj Vs State of Hy. and Ors.

Munni Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others