IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

Date of Decision: 08.01.2026

P. SUB INSPECTOR PHOOL KAWAR ...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. …Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate

for the petitioner

Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG Haryana

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders

dated 25.10.2018 and 14.11.2018 whereby his seniority was altered.

2. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement No.5 of 2008 applied for the post of Sub Inspector under General Category. He cleared written as well as physical test. He was declared successful by Recruitment Board. He was offered appointment letter on 07.10.2011. All the successful candidates except petitioner were offered appointment letter in October’ 2010. The petitioner denied appointment on account of his involvement in a criminal case. It is apt to mention here that he was acquitted in criminal case prior to declaration of result and he had duly disclosed factum of criminal case in the application form. He preferred CWP-2928-2011 before this Court

seeking direction to respondent to issue him appointment letter. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.07.2011. The operative portion of judgment dated 06.07.2011 reads as:- “There is, thus, case made out for issuing direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment upon his acquittal. The post for which the petitioner was selected has already been offered to respondent No.4. It will not be fair to dislodge any person, who has been given appointment. Mr. Malik has invited my attention to the averment made in para 8 (ii) of the petition, where it is stated that there are 20 posts still available against which the appointment of the petitioner can be made. If that be so, the case of the petitioner be considered for appointment against such posts.”

3. The petitioner pursuant to aforesaid judgment was issued appointment letter. He joined service on 07.10.2011 and candidates lower in merit than him joined service in October’ 2010. The respondent in May’ 2015 issued tentative seniority list. He filed objection to aforesaid tentative seniority list. The respondent in the seniority list placed him as per merit list prepared by Recruitment Board at the time of selection. The respondent by impugned order revised seniority list and placed him as per his date of joining.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could join on 07.10.2011 because of delay on the part of respondents. There was no lapse on his part. He had already been acquitted by trial Court, thus, respondent was bound to issue him appointment letter along with other candidates. The respondent by impugned orders has deprived him from his valuable right of seniority.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was issued appointment letter pursuant to order dated 06.07.2011 passed by this Court. In the said order, there was no direction to consider him from the date other candidates joined service.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner scaled the steps of selection process and came to be selected in 2010. He was subjected to character and antecedent verification. It was found that he was implicated in FIR No.369 dated 20.07.2005 under Section 365/34 IPC. The respondent did not issue him appointment letter because of his involvement in criminal case. The respondent formed an opinion that petitioner was acquitted on technical grounds, thus, was not eligible for the post. He preferred writ petition before this Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 06.07.2011. This Court formed an opinion that petitioner deserves to be given appointment letter. During the pendency of writ petition, another candidate was o