Kiranjeet Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: 23.03.2026 KIRANJEET KAUR ... Appellant

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:

Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Siddarth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

**** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL) CM-1967-LPA-2026 1.

There is a delay of 152 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2.

Counsel for the applicant-appellant states that after the judgment was passed by learned Single Judge on 17.09.2025, a review petition was filed which was dismissed on 26.02.2026. Counsel further states that the instant appeal was instituted on 16.03.2026 resulting in a delay of 152 days. 3.

Heard.

4.

For the reasons given in the application which is supported with an

affidavit of the applicant-appellant, application is allowed. Delay of 152 days in the filing of the appeal is condoned.

Main case 5.

Appellant has approached this Court assailing judgment dated 17.09.2025 passed by the writ Court whereby her petition has been dismissed on account of delay and laches.

6.

Counsel for the appellant has been heard.

7.

Appellant claims that she had applied for the post of ETT Teacher pursuant to advertisement dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) and she was placed at serial No.1 in the waiting list. One Rekha was selected for the post. Appellant moved a complaint dated 19.04.2018 (Annexure P-4) against Rekha alleging that she had secured appointment on the basis of a bogus certificate. The complaint was enquired into and allegations were found to be true. On the basis of the enquiry report, an order dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure P-5) was passed for the termination of services of Rekha, who approached this Court and by order dated 27.09.2018 (Annexure P-6), she was granted an interim protection. Writ petition was decided on 20.03.2023 (Annexure P-10) and after granting personal hearing, by order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-12), Rekha's services were terminated. 8.

Appellant claims that being the first candidate in the waiting list, she is entitled to be appointed in place of Rekha. Appellant has approached the Court in the year 2025 whereas the entire selection process was completed in the year 2013. Merely because, appellant has been submitting complaints and representations or had approached the authorities under the Right to Information Act, would not extend the period of limitation. Writ petition filed by her is clearly hit by delay and laches. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge.

9.

Finding no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 23.03.2026 sapna Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No