Jagroop Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 21.08.2025 JAGROOP SINGH

...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

On 01.05.2017, following order was passed by this Court:- "Petitioner has competed for the post of Constable in the general category for "Mounted Armed Police", Punjab against the 33 posts advertised vide advertisement dated 29.09.2016 (P-1). The selection process requires the candidates to pass a qualifying tests of Horse Riding in proper dress and Physical Screening Test before their merit was to be determined on the basis of the marks secured by them in their education qualifications plus height etc. Although all the candidates were called for the qualifying tests on 09.11.2016 at Jalandhar, however, upon the request of the petitioner for postponement due to medical reasons, he was asked to appear on 26.11.2016. It is contended that the petitioner was not allowed to undertake the Horse Riding test on 26.11.2016 on account of alleged "not being in proper dress" due to malafide reasons. The petitioner on 28.11.2016 had made

-2an appeal to the DGP, Punjab for examining the videography of the tests conducted on 26.11.2016 at the Recruitment Centre, Jalandhar, which would substantiate the allegations of the petitioner.

Notice of motion for 25.08.2017."

2.

The said order was followed by order dated 08.03.2022 which read as:- "As per the reply filed, the petitioner herein was not permitted to undertake the examination/test, as he was not wearing the proper kit at the time of trial for enlistment as constable in mounted police, as per the provisions of the standing order.

The reply is based upon a video CD, supposed to have been attached with the written statement, but the same is missing.

Let the video CD be placed on the record and a copy thereof be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner as well.

Adjourned to 20.04.2022."

3.

During the course of hearing, learned State counsel produced video recording in pen drive which was played on the computer screen of the Court Master. It is visible from the video that petitioner was not wearing required riding kit especially breeches. 4.

There is another aspect of the matter. The selection was completed in 2016-17 and a period of eight years has passed away. 5.

In the wake of above factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

-36.

Pending application(s), if any stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 21.08.2025 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No