Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Hemant Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
1. Reply by way of additional affidavit dated 13.01.2026 of Mr. Charanjit Singh, I.P.S., Assistant Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, Headquarter, Punjab is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashing of Clause 28(b) of Standing Order No.10 of 2016 dated 06.09.2016 which provides that relative merit of candidates having equal marks shall be determined on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in graduation. He is further seeking directions to respondents to revise merit list of candidates selected as Intelligence Officer in the Intelligence Cadre of Punjab Police against Advertisement No.2 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016.
3. The petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement No.2 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016, applied for the post of Intelligence Officer. He cleared all the prescribed stages of recruitment. The respondent issued provisional list of selected candidates on 26.12.2016. Few candidates preferred CWP No.365 of 2017 before this Court. On account of interim orders of this Court, the respondent could not fill vaca
Refusal to accept promotion under Rule 18.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules results in a two-year debarment, which is lawful and applicable to all government employees.
Corrigendum issued by an Executive Authority cannot substitute the provisions contained in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed under provision to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
The court affirmed that candidates cannot challenge a selection process after participating without objection, emphasizing the authority of the Director General of Police to issue Standing Orders wit....
The Jharkhand Rajya Police Appointment Rules, 2014 are valid and do not violate constitutional provisions, affirming the employer's authority to set recruitment criteria.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
A candidate who participates in a selection process wherein the eligibility criteria as well as the criteria for selection are disclosed beforehand cannot, upon being unsuccessful, turn around and co....
Seniority among direct recruits is determined by the date of continuous regular appointment, with delays due to medical issues not affecting this determination.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
