IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2724-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 02.02.2026 Dr. Kanwal Marwaha ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. 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 setting-aside the illegal public notice dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-14) vide which fresh counselling has been kept of Backward Class candidates from Serial No.1 to 32 of the Merit List for the post of Executive Officer Class-II, despite last opportunity granted and not availed by candidates at Serial No.1 to 8 in previous counselling vide notice dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-16) thereby disentitling them from being considered. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents for due consideration and appointment of petitioner on one vacant post of Executive Officer, Class-II of Backward Class Category pertaining to advertisement DLG/RC/2015/1 dated 01.07.2015 for which final result was declared in December, 2024 as the per directions passed by this Court in CWP-8655-2024, titled as Rohit Karwasra vs State of Punjab and others. Lastly, it has been prayed that during the pendency of writ petition, the public notice dated 08.01.2026 and any further proceedings consequent thereto, be stayed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner participated in the selection process in which one post under Backward Class category remains vacant. He further submits that during the first round of counselling, certain candidates failed to appear and, thereafter, another opportunity was granted by calling the candidates placed at Serial Nos.1 to 32 in the merit list. However, as per the settled position of law, the candidates who neither joined nor were selected in the earlier round of counselling, cannot be permitted to participate in the subsequent counselling. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the candidates placed at Serial Nos.1 to 8 had already availed the opportunity of counselling held on 27.11.2024 and, therefore, fresh counselling, if any, could only be conducted for the candidates placed at Serial Nos.9 to 32, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelu Arora and another vs. Union of India and others, (2003) 3 SCC 366

3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that only one post remain vacant and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition on two grounds: firstly, there were two posts under the Backward Class category and secondly, two persons at Serial No.4 and 8 were found suitable for the post, however, the candidate at Serial No.4 did not join and the said post remain vacant and for filling up six posts, the candidates from Serial No.1 to 32 have been called and as such, there is no illegality in the selection process.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P- 17) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.1 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

5. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.1 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-17) filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

6. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the legal notice dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-17) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, t