IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-3485-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 29.01.2026 GURPREET SINGH ..Appellant Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab.

***

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.

CM-8622-LPA-2025 The present application seeks a delay of 2970 days in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter remained under consideration at various official levels to determine whether the case was fit for filing an appeal, which resulted in the delay.

Heard.

The application for condonation of delay is vague and lacking in material particulars. No proper or sufficient explanation has been furnished to justify such an inordinate delay.

Consequently, no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. However, having heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length, we deem it appropriate to consider the merits of the appeal as well.

Main Case Through the present intra-court appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the respondent-PSPCL’s elimination of backlog reserved vacancies for the Scheduled Caste category in the direct recruitment process for the post of Lineman, while issuing the advertisement, is not justified.

2. The brief facts emerging from the pleadings in the present appeal are that the appellant, being a Scheduled Caste candidate holding a diploma in the trade of Electrician/Lineman, challenged Advertisement No. 281/13 issued by PSPCL for the recruitment of Linemen and elimination of backlog vacancies, by filing a writ petition and the same stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed the intra-court appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to apply Section 6 of the Act of 2006, which mandates that backlog or carry-forward vacancies are to be treated as a separate category, to which the 50% ceiling does not apply. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge wrongly accepted the figures supplied by PSPCL without critically examining the earlier RTI information and advertisements, which themselves acknowledged a backlog of 739 vacancies reserved for the SC category. He further submits that the impugned judgment has resulted in the continued deprivation of employment opportunities to eligible Scheduled Caste candidates against long-standing backlog vacancies. Hence, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

4. Heard.

5. The relevant findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are given hereinbelow:

“Appended along with the written statement is even the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary (Zones) PSPCL and submitted to the Punjab State Scheduled Caste Commission at Annexure R-1. The deposition contained in such affidavit would be relevant. There is a reference to memo dated 21.10.2011, issued by PSPCL containing instructions for reservation and promotions of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Class. Under Para-6 Sub Clause 3, the backlog of carried forward reservation vacancies for Scheduled Castes is to be included keeping in view the total number of vacancies filled up in each cadre of service. It has also been deposed in the affidavit at Annexure R-1 that the Cadre capacity of Linemen in the corporation is 14348 and 50% of which, by way of direct recruitment comes to 7174 posts. As per Regulation 6(1) of the Technical Services Grade III 1996 Rules, 50% quota has been stipulated to be filled up through direct recruitment. Further it is clarified that as on the date of filing of the affidavit the number of Lineman working through direct recruitment is 3201 and by taking reservation to be 25% of the posts of Scheduled Castes Category, the number arrived at is 800.

Furthermore, at Annexure R-