IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 04.11.2025 SUKHCHAIN SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate with Ms. Shikha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to issue him appointment letter.

2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement applied for the post of Constable. 87 posts were advertised. Out of advertised 87 posts, 46 were meant for General Category and 2 for Wards of Police Personnel (in short ‘WPP’). There were two candidates who belonged to WPP Category and scored more marks than last selected candidate in General Category. These two candidates were selected under General Category, resultantly, two candidates of General Category shifted to waiting list. The petitioner was originally at Sr. No.3 in the waiting list and on account of selection of two candidates of WPP Category under General Category, candidates from waiting list were selected under General Category. The candidates of waiting list came to be selected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 46 seats were earmarked for General Category candidates, however, respondents selected 51 candidates. The petitioner belongs to General Category and ought to be selected. The respondent has also selected two candidates under WPP Category.

4. From the perusal of record and arguments of state Counsel, it is evident that petitioner finally reached to Sr. No.2 in the waiting list of General Category. As per petitioner, 51 candidates were selected under General Category though there were 46 seats, meaning thereby, General Category candidates were selected more than requisite number of posts. The petitioner was at Sr. No.2 in the waiting list. This Court cannot compel State to select all the candidates in the waiting list unless and until there is concrete evidence that earmarked seats are not occupied.

There is nothing on record disclosing that posts are still lying vacant.

5. There is another aspect of the matter. The matter relates to advertisement of 2011. The selection process completed in 2012. A period of 13 years from the selection of all the candidates has passed away. It would not be appropriate at this belated stage to direct respondent to operate waiting list.

6. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed

7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE November 04, 2025 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No