Ranjit Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab And ORS.
CWP-19197-2014 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-19197-2014 Date of Decision: 11.08.2025 RANJIT SINGH AND ORS.
...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG Punjab Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rishu Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No.4, 5, 7 to 12 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.
The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondent to recompute the merit list of Backward Class Category and revise the result.
2.
The petitioners pursuant to advertisement dated 11.09.2010 applied for the post of Constable. They applied under BC Category. The respondent declared result wherein candidates belonging to Reserved Category and having more marks than candidates selected under General Category were kept in their own category i.e. Reserved Category. Resultantly, many Reserved Category candidates could not be selected. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.08.11 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-19197-2014 -2This led to instant petition.
3.
During the pendency of instant petition, the respondent revised result and found that there are 33 candidates belonging to SC/BC Categories who have scored more than the candidates selected under General Category. These candidates were shifted to General Category and show cause notice was issued to 27 candidates belonging to General Category. The aforesaid 27 candidates approached this Court by way of CWP-6254-2017 assailing show cause notices. This Court vide order dated 24.03.2017 while issuing notice of motion ordered to maintain status quo. The said petition is still pending and 27 candidates who are over and above the advertised posts are still working with respondent. 4.
From the perusal of reply, it is evident that out of 9 petitioners 6 have already been selected on account of revision of result. Three are not selected because their names do not figure in select list despite revision of result.
5.
The respondent has revised the result and done the needful. Thus, no further order is warranted.
6.
Disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 11.08.2025 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.08.11 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document