Manjeet Vs State of Haryana and Otherrs

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 is seeking setting aside of orders dated 13.01.2026 and 28.01.2025 whereby his representations for re-appointment were rejected on account of registration of FIR against him.

¶12

The petitioner pursuant to Advertisement No. 6 of 2024 applied for the posts of Male Constable (General Duty). He cleared all the stages and came to selected provisionally. He was given provisional appointment vide office order dated 22.10.2024 subject to his verification of character, criminal antecedents, medical/fitness and biometric/facial certificates. He duly disclosed the factum of pending FIR No. 280 dated 28.04.2022 under Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against him. Charges against him were framed on 30.01.2023. Superintendent of Police, Jind terminated him from service vide order

¶13

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.03.05 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CWP-1504-2026

¶15

-2-

¶16

dated 19.12.2024. He preferred representation dated 24.12.2024. ADGP, Hisar while exercising powers under Rule 12.18(3)(b) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to state of Haryana) (for short ‘PPR’) rejected the same vide order dated 28.01.2025. Petitioner came to be acquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar vide judgment dated 17.11.2025. He again preferred representation dated 09.12.2025 for his reinstatement on account of his acquittal. DGP, Haryana rejected the same while relying on Rule 12.16(4)(a) of PPR vide order dated 13.01.2026.

¶17

Learned State counsel during the course of hearing produced original record disclosing that petitioner was facing charges in FIR dated 28.04.2022 prior to filing application from pursuant to advertisement No.6/2024. The petitioner was facing charges on the date of filing application form, thus, could not be selected in view of Rule 12.16(4)(a).

¶18

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

¶19

From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner applied for the post of Constable against Advertisement No.6/2024. An FIR was registered against him on 28.04.2022. Charges were framed against him on 30.01.2023. As per Rule 12.16(4)(a) a candidate against whom a criminal court has framed charges on or before the last date of submission of application form shall not be eligible to submit application form. Rule 12.16(4) of PPR reads as:-

¶20

“12.16(4) Applications: - (a) A candidate against whom a criminal court has framed charges on or before the last date of submission of application form shall not be considered eligible to submit application form.

¶21

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.03.05 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP-1504-2026

¶23

-3-

¶24

(b) Applications must be accompanied with prescribed fee and shall be received online. The information submitted online by the candidate shall be final.

¶25

(c) Roll number shall be allotted to the eligible candidate and shall be uploaded on the official website of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Once the roll numbers are allotted, each candidate shall be able to generate admit card to join the process of selection.”

¶26

This Court vide judgment dated 25.03.2025 in CWP-16815-

¶27

2024 titled as “Manisha Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.”, Law Finder Doc ID#2710953 while interpreting aforesaid Rule has already enunciated that a candidate who is facing charges on the date of filing application is ineligible to apply. Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by

¶28

Manisha (supra) .

¶29

In the wake of above discussions and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶32

March 05, 2026 Deepak DPA

¶33

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶34

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.03.05 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manjeet v. State of Haryana and Otherrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet v. State of Haryana and Otherrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sish Ram Vs State of Haryana

Parbhu Dayal Vs State of Hy.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Tejinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harjeet Singh Vs the Commissioner Gurgaon Division and Ors.

Angrej Singh Si Vs State of Haryana and Others