LPA-701-2023 (O&M) & Connected cases -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 (04 cases) LPA-701-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision :09.07.2026 Manpreet Singh and another ..Appellants Versus Staff Selection Board and another ...Respondents LPA-377-2023 (O&M) Jagtar Singh and another ..Appellants Versus Staff Selection Board and another ...Respondents LPA-696-2023 (O&M) Jagdeep Singh ..Appellant Versus Staff Selection Board and another ...Respondents LPA-984-2023 (O&M) Jasbir Singh ..Appellant Versus Staff Selection Board and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate with AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.15 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-701-2023 (O&M) & Connected cases -2- Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-701-2023. Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for the appellant(s) in LPA-696 & 984 of 2023. Mr. Tudhjot Kaur Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for appellant in LPA-377-2023. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocater for respondent No.2 in LPA-984-2023. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. In the present appeals, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP- 9050-2019 whereby the selection of the appellant were set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that a selection was made by the respondent-Board qua 32 post which were later increased to 52 posts through corrigendum dated 02.05.2013 of drivers though, the challenge was only raised qua selection of 04 selected candidates on the ground of non-adhering to the criteria while making selection whereas, the learned Single Judge has set aside the selection of 04 candidates, out of total 52 selected and appointed candidates on the ground that the marks of the driving test which were required to be taken into consideration i.e. 40 marks out of total 100 marks were not taken into account while framing the merit by the respondent-Board hence, the selection and appointment of the appellants on such posts of tractor drivers have been set aside whereas, 48 other drivers, who were selected on the basis of same selection process by following same criteria, are still continuing in service. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that as per AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.15 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-701-2023 (O&M) & Connected cases -3- the respondent, though the marks were fixed for driving test at 40, whosoever cleared the driving test, 40 marks were given so that no prejudice is suffered however, the same fact has been ignored by the learned Single Judge while passing impugned order dated 10.02.2023 to hold that criteria as envisaged was wrongly applied while finalizing the selection of the appellants on such 04 posts. 4. While issuing notice of motion, the appellants were protected and they have been continuing in service from the date of their initial appointment i.e. February, 2015 and they are in service for the last 11 years. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondents has not been able to dispute the fact that for clearing the driving test all the candidates were given 40 marks by the respondent-Board. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 7. It may be noticed that as per the contention of the Staff Selection Board though 40 marks were fixed for driving test and 10 marks for interview, which was the criteria for selection on such post, every candidate who cleared the test was given 40 marks, then, the selection was only be based upon the marks obtained in the interview. Once, the criteria was uniformly followed qua all the candiates and no prejudice was shown by the writ petitioners, setting aside the selection of only 04 candidates out of the total 52 selected and appointed so as to allow other 48 candidates to continue in service despite being selected on the basis of same criteria in the same selection process, cannot be accepted. Either whole selection process goes or whole selection continues. AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.15 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-701-2023 (O&M) & Connected cases -4- 8. Further, the appellants have been working for the last 11 years i.e. since February, 2015. Once, the selected candidates have continued working for the last 11 years on such posts, throwing them out now, will cause irreparable loss as nothing has come against the selected candidates before this Court that the selection of the appellants was biased or manipulated in any manner. 9. The only ground taken by the learned Single Judge is that the marks allocated to the candidates in the driving test were not added to the marks of interview so as to set aside the selection of the appellants and that too only qua 04 selected candidates out of the total 52 selected candidates by the respondent. 10. It may be further noticed that in case, 40 marks were equally given to all the candidates who cleared the driving test, then the petitioner/respondent No.2 cannot contend that prejudice is caused to him. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding that the criteria so adopted by respondent-Board has caused prejudice to anyone. In the absence of any such finding terminating the services of only 04 out of the 52 selected candidates qua such posts, who have been performing their duty for the last 11 years, will be incorrect. 11. Further, if the selection of the candidates is set aside now, irreparable loss will be caused to the appellants as then they would not be able to appear in any other selection process being overage hence, setting aside the selection at this stage in the absence of any malafide process or manipulation by respondent No.1 will cause prejudice to the selected candidates. Even otherwise, the petitioner/respondent No.2 have not been AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.15 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-701-2023 (O&M) & Connected cases -5- granted any benefit of selection by the learned Single Judge. 12. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot sustain in the eyes of law as certain relevant facts have been ignored by the learned Single Judge, the same is accordingly set aside and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 13. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. 14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 09, 2026 aarti Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether reportable : No AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.15 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document