LPA-1483-2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106+234 CM-6092-LPA-2024 in/& LPA-1483-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision :20.07.2026 Pushwinder Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. J.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-3791-LPA-2023 Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 110 days in filing the present appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 110 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM-6092-LPA-2024 As prayed for, application is allowed. LPA-1483-2023 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1483-2023 (O&M) -2- 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-6066- 2023 whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant herein claiming that he was entitled to appointment to the post of Constable against the post advertised vide advertisement dated 11.09.2010 by the respondents, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was entitled to appointment to the post of Constable as certain candidates, who were lower in merit than the appellant, were selected and appointed to the said post which aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and has been ignored while dismissing the writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 4. It may be noticed that the same argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court, was also raised before the learned Single Judge and a finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had competed in the general category whereas, the candidate who has allegedly been selected even though lower in merit, belonged to the reserved category and that, no one from the general category having lower merit than the petitioner i.e. appellant herein, has been appointed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to rebut the said factual aspect even in the present appeal. 6. It may be noticed that once, no candidate lower in merit than the appellant in the category in which the appellant had competed for AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1483-2023 (O&M) -3- selection and appointment, has been appointed, the appellant has misconstrued the appointment of the private respondent, who was competing in the reserved category and therefore, has no connection with the general category to which category the appellant belongs. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded hereinbefore, coupled with the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any perversity in the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is dismissed. 8. Civil miscellaneous application if any, is also disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 20, 2026 aarti Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether reportable : No AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document