CWP-2618-2021 1 CWP-23626-2018 252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CWP-2618-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 PARAMJEET SINGH AND ANR ......... Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ..... Respondents 2) CWP-23626-2018 ROSHAN LAL AND ORS …...Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present : Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-2618-2021. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-23626-2018. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.2 (in both cases). Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP-23626-2018. **** JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (Oral) 1. By this common order CWP-2618-2021 and CWP-23626- 2018 are disposed of since issues involved in the above captioned petitions and prayer sought are common. With the consent of parties and for the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CWP-2618-2021. 2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside seniority list dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-15) whereby petitioners have been made junior to private respondents. 3. The petitioners are claiming that they were selected by way Asgar Ali 2025.07.08 08:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2618-2021 2 CWP-23626-2018 of interview. There was no written test. They belong to reserved category. In the seniority list of August’ 2010, they were shown senior to private respondents, however, by way of subsequent seniority list, they have been made junior. All the candidates belonging to General Category have been made senior to them. 4. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.2 submits that there is no infirmity in the seniority list. It was prepared in accordance with applicable Rules. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of hearing, produced result of the interview which was conducted at the time to selection. He claims that petitioners have secured more marks than private respondents, thus, they should be senior to private respondents. 6. Without commenting upon merit of the case, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent to consider claim of petitioners having regard to placement of petitioners as per marks obtained by them at the time of selection. The respondents would be at liberty to consider seniority of petitioners, in accordance with law, apart from marks obtained by the petitioners at the time of selection. 7. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from today. 8. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 07.07.2025 Ali Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Asgar Ali 2025.07.08 08:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document