SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 497

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Naveen – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Girender Singh, Advocate Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Pardeep Chokker, Advocate with Mr. Parvesh Malik, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, Advocate Mr. Pardeep Sehrawat, Advocate and Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate Mr. Ankur Sidhar, Advocate Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate with Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Malik, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Sheoran, Advocate Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate and Mr. Yashwir Hooda, Advocate Mr. Gourav Phogat, Advocate Mr. Parmender Singh Bhukal, Advocate for the petitioner; Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate Mr. Mayank Yadav, Advocate Mr. Varun Parkash, Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Mr. Virender Soni, Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Harit Narang, Advocate Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate Mr. Anshul Khurana, Advocate Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate (through video conferencing) Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate and Mr. P.S. Walia, Advocate Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate Mr. Deepak Vashishth, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Ms. Dimple Jain, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana; Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate Ms. Harita Dhanda, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J.

As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-17852-2024.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of public notices dated 14.07.2024 (Annexure P-5), 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-11), 21.07.2024 (Annexure P-12), 21.07.2024 (Annexure P-13) and 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-14) whereby their candidature has been rejected in BC-A/BC-B Category on the ground that they have submitted BC-A/BC-B certificate of a date which is before the cut-off date i.e. 01.04.2023.

3. The petitioners pursuant to Advertisement No.6 dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) applied for the post of Constable (General Duty). The respondent vide aforesaid advertisement invited applications for 5,000 posts of Male Constable (General Duty) and 1,000 posts of Female Constable (General Duty). 1100 seats are reserved for BC-A/BC-B (for short 'BC') candidates in Male Category and 220 in Female Category. As per advertisement, Common Eligibility Test (for short 'CET') q

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top