Harwinder Kaur v. Kumar Rahul And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP-2559-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.09.2025 Harwinder Kaur ... Petitioner

Versus

Kumar Rahul and Another ... Respondents CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, DAG Punjab ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1.

This is a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of proceedings against the respondents for violation of the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in CWP-22304-2020. 2.

The operative portion of order dated 28.01.2025 passed in CWP22304-2020 reads as under : " 4.

The criteria being more than crystal clear for granting marks and despite a number of opportunities sought on behalf of the State no justification having been given to substantiate the solitary stand taken in the written statement that experience of 05 years was required for qualifying to the said post and no marks were to be granted for experience for purpose of selection, the action JITENDER KUMAR 2025.09.05 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

COCP-2559-2025 -2of the authority is arbitrary.

5.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to redraw the merit of the petitioners by awarding the requisite marks for experience subject to verification of the certificates." 3.

Learned State counsel has pointed out that in deference to the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Writ Court, the merit of the petitioner has been redrawn by granting her 10 marks for experience. Learned State counsel has further pointed out that even the other candidates, who are on the merit list and had not been granted marks for experience, have been granted marks for experience.

4.

In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition and the same is disposed off. Rule stands discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

5.

Needless to say, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order she would always be at liberty to avail her remedies as available in law. ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE 04.09.2025 jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO JITENDER KUMAR 2025.09.05 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh