250-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1948-2026 (o&m) DECIDED ON: 26.08.2026 GURPREET KAUR AND ANR. .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kataria, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG. Punjab Mr. R.K. Arora, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Advocate Mr. Shivam Ahuja, Advocate Ms. Urvashi, Advocate and Ms. Kiranpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5 SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) CM-8961-CWP-2025 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Written statement on behalf of respondents No.4 & 5 is taken on record. Main case The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing order Annexure P-15 dated 13.06.2025 vide which the petitioner have been shifted on the direct recruitment quota post in order to promote and facilitate the private respondents No.4 and 5 on the promotional quota post of Senior Assistant in an illegal, arbitrary manner and in violation of principle of natural justice as also in complete violation of statutory rules in purported compliance of the judgment Annexure P-14 dated 05.02.2025 passed by this High Court in CWP MEENU 2026.08.27 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1948-2026 (o&m) -2- No.20892 of 2020 titled as Ashwani Kumar Mehta vs State of Punjab and others, even though the directions were limited to consideration of the case of the private respondents in accordance with law. Learned State counsel refers to para 5 of reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 dated 27.04.2026, wherein it is stated as under:- “That upon consideration of the applicable statutory provisions, it appears that the speaking order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P-15) so passed by the then Deputy Commissioner Sangrur requires reconsideration to ensure that the same is in consonance with the governing Service Rules. Therefore, the answering respondents may kindly be permitted to review/revisit the speaking order dated 13.06.2025 and to pass a fresh order, if so required, strictly in acoordance with the applicable rules and law.” In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the petition is disposed of in terms of the undertaking given hereinabove, whereby the competent authority has undertaken to review/revisit the speaking order dated 13.06.2025 and pass a fresh order. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the speaking order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P-15) is hereby set aside. The respondents/competent authority shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh and review/revisit the impugned speaking order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P-15) and pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 26.08.2026 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No MEENU 2026.08.27 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document