225 (6 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurpiar Singh and others …Appellants Vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents LPA-607-2021 (O&M)

Aditya Marwaha and others …Appellants Vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents LPA-781-2021 (O&M)

Sandeep Singh and others …Appellants Vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents LPA-1083-2021 (O&M)

Satnam Singh …Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents LPA-432-2021 (O&M)

Raj Kumar and others …Appellants Vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents Date of Decision: 13.01.2025 Manoj Kumar …Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-376-2021.

Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-607-2021.

Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-781-2021.

Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Avtar S. Khinda, Advocate for the appellant in LPA-1083-

2021.

Dr. Rau P.S. Girwar, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-432-2021.

Mr. Baljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant in LPA-961-2022. Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the private respondents in LPA-376-2021. Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for the respondents.

Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for respondents No.121 to 131 in LPA-376-2021 and respondents No.4 to 11 in LPA-607-

2021.

Ms. Sunaina, Advocate for Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for respondents No.5, 7 to 21, 23 to 27, 29, 30, 32 to 41, 43 to 57, 61, 62, 65, 67, 68, 70 to 80, 83 to 85, 91, 94, 95, 97 to 101, 105 to 109, 111, 112, 114 to 118 and

120 in LPA-376-2021.

Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab.

***

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. By way of this judgment, we shall decide six appeals as the issue raised in all the appeals is same. The facts of the case are being taken from LPA-376-2021.

2, The present appeal assails the order dated 22.01.2021, passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby the learned Single Bench decided bunch of the writ petitions and passed directions to the respondents – department to consider the writ petitioners in the waiting list for their appointment on the post of Male Constable (Drivers).

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has strenuously argued and submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court 2024 INSC 847. It is his submission that the original advertisement was issued by the Punjab Police inviting applications for filling up ‘750’ posts of Male Constable (Drivers) in the District Police Cadre of Punjab Police. As per the advertisement, the candidates were required to undergo a selection process which included the substance abuse (drug addiction) test, physical screening test, physical measurement test, where after a written test was to be conducted and those who qualified the physical trials and the written test were further required to appear for a driving proficiency test (for short ‘DPT’) and where after the select list was to be prepared. However the Punjab Police issued a public notice dated 24.12.2016, whereby it has done away with the requirement of clearing of DPT and thereby the rules of the game were changed midway. He submits that the merit list which was prepared of the candidates without conducting DPT was thus vitiated and the selection conducted accordingly was bad in law. Learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Single Bench has failed to take notice that as per the standing order dated 24.12.2016, the Director General of Police, Punjab had made such a requirement of passing the DPT as essential qualification for appointment as a Driver and the select list could not have been prepared only after those candidates had cleared the DPT.

Learned senior counsel submits that the standing order remained in force during the selection process and the same w