High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/11841/2022dismissed

Sonu v. State Of Haryana And Others

2026-05-01Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar2 pages

CWP-11841-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11841-2022 Date of Decision: 01.05.2026 Sonu .....Petitioner

VERSUS

State Of Haryana And Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG Haryana.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1.

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to a Group-C post, such as Electrician, Technician, or any other suitable Group-C post, on the basis of his qualifications, in terms of the policy dated 14.02.2012 (Annexure P-5), the judgment dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Hon'ble High Court, and the LPA order dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure P-7). Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus is sought directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for PARUL VERMA 2026.05.05 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-11841-2022 appointment to a Group-C post from the date on which other similarly situated persons were appointed, along with all consequential benefits, and to pay arrears with interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner. 2.

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment, as he has raised his claim on the basis of land acquired from Jogi Ram, which is only 3 kanals. As such, he is not eligible under the policy, which requires that the acquired land of the family should be 2 acres or more. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached the respondent-Nigam only in the year 2019. The case is also barred by delay and laches. 3.

Today, the present case was called twice, but none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Even on the last date of hearing i.e. 28.04.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, so also the pending miscellaneous application, if any. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 01.05.2026 Parul Verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.05.05 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.