205/2. IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Raman Kumar Kochhar and others State of Punjab and others 205/3. Vinod Kumar State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J 1. common order IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision: 1 Raman Kumar Kochhar and others Versus State of Punjab and others CWP Vinod Kumar Versus State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sehar Navjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab Mr. Jashan Preet Singh Deol, Advocate, for respondent No.6 in CWP No.24214 of 2011. Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 7 in CWP No.24214 of 2011. ----- SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL) Both the above said writ petitions are being disposed of by common order, as the issue involved in these petitions is the same. IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24214-2011 Date of decision: 16.07.2026 …. Petitioners …. Respondents CWP-946-2018 …. Petitioner …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL or Advocate, with Ms. Sehar Navjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Punjab. Mr. Jashan Preet Singh Deol, Advocate, for respondent No.6 in CWP No.24214 of 2011. Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Advocate, s No.4 and 7 in CWP No.24214 of 2011. Both the above said writ petitions are being disposed of by a as the issue involved in these petitions is the same. a SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.20 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24214-2011 & CWP-946-2018 - 2 - 2. The petitioner(s), in both these writ petitions, are seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to process the selection for filling 8 vacancies of PCS (Executive Branch) from Register A-II from amongst the members of Group A, Group B and Group C services holding ministerial appointments as per requisition dated 04.11.2008 as per the unamended Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 as applicable at that point of time. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that since the vacancies, sought to be filled, stand filled in the year 2016, therefore, no cause of action survives for further adjudication of these writ petitions. 4. However, Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would make an endeavour to insist that these vacancies have been filled up de hors the Rules with the application of the amended Rules which would not have been applicable to the said selection and in fact, the unamended Rules were required to be applied to their case. 5. This Court is conscious of the fact that specific prayer in the original writ petition(s) was to process the selection for filling 8 vacancies of PCS (Executive Branch) from Register A-II from amongst the members of Group A, Group B and Group C services, and the subsequent selections made during the pendency of present writ petitions is not under challenge in these writ petitions and have not been questioned at all before this Court. SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.20 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24214-2011 & CWP-946-2018 - 3 - Hence, on a separate cause of action, which is available to the petitioner(s), if they choose to, may avail their remedies as per law. 6. In view of above, the relief claimed in these writ petitions has become infructuous and the instant writ petitions are disposed of as such. 7. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 16.07.2026 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.20 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document