Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2024 DAILYLAW 3156 (PNJ)

HARMIT SINGH SIDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CWP/7291/2024 · 2026-08-26

Namit Kumar

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CWP-7291 of 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7291 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.08.2026 Harmit Singh Sidhu ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. Yash Garg, Advocate, for applicant-respondent No.4. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) CM-13062-CWP-2026 1. This application has been filed by applicant-respondent No.4 for preponement of date of hearing of the writ petition from 04.11.2026 to some early date. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, application is allowed and the main case is taken on board for hearing today itself. CM-13063-CWP-2026 1. This application has been filed by applicant-respondent No.4 for placing on record the copy of judgment dated 20.07.2026, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-16084-2026 – RAVINDER SINGH 2026.08.26 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh 2 CWP-7291 of 2024 (O&M) Harmit Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and others as Annexure R4/1 and for granting exemption from filing certified copy of the same. 2. Allowed as prayed for. Annexure R4/1 is taken on record. CWP-7291-2024 1. Instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4 done vide order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P-4) to the post of Junior Engineer Civil. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Harmit Singh Sidhu’s case (supra). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refute the abovesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In view of the above, present petition is dismissed in the same terms. However, it is clarified that costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the petitioner in the said petition shall not be applicable in the present case. (NAMIT KUMAR) 26.08.2026 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2026.08.26 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh