IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-PIL-71-2026 Date of decision: 27.03.2026 Harpal Singh and ors ….Petitioners.

Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY, JUDGE Present:- Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate, Ms. Kritima Sareen, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Mr. B.S. Seemar, Advocate, (through VC)

for respondent No. 5.

..…

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)

1. Petitioners have filed this public interest litigation raising the alleged public cause of the mandatory norms under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Rules framed thereunder, not being followed while recruiting teaching as well as non teaching staff.

2. (Annexure P-16) dated 27.11.2025, inter alia, discloses, as under: -

‘During the enquiry, they were repeatedly urged to maintain such an environment, but the response from the staff was not satisfactory. In view of these circumstances, the committee suggests that it would be better to continue the services of the current staff during the academic year 2025-

2026, so that the study of the students may not suffer and the school environment remains stable. However, for the next academic year 2026-27, the services of all previous staff should be terminated and a fresh recruitment of qualified staff be conducted according to the norms.

Regarding Adarsh School Chauke, which is running on PPP mode, although school managers have been appointed, this can only be considered a temporary arrangement (stop gap arrangement). Keeping in view the circumstances of this school, the interference of the D.G.S.E./P.E.D.B has become extremely necessary in the interest of the students and the public.’

3. From the aforesaid, it is evident that an inquiry was conducted into the lapses pointed out by the petitioners at the level of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Bathinda, being the Chief of the Inquiry Committee and it was opined that the interference of DGSE and PEDB, i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3, has become extremely necessary in the interest of students and public, vide letter dated

27.011.2025 (Annexure P-16).

4. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioners that no action had been taken pursuant to the letter dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-16) by respondents No. 2 and 3, i.e. DGSE and PEDB.

5. In view of above, since the Executive Authorities are seized of the matter, this Court refrains from interference on merits and directs the DGSE and PEDB, i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively, to take a final decision well before the commencement of new Academic Session 2026-2027, preferably within a period of 15 days by passing a speaking order or taking appropriate corrective steps.

6. If the lapses pointed out by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Bathinda, are found to be subsisting, compliance report shall be filed within an outer limit of four weeks, failing which the matter be listed in IOIN.

7. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.

(SHEEL NAGU)

CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY)

27.03.2026 JUDGE preeti