Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 506 (PNJ)

JASBIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CWP/11611/2025 · 2026-03-27

Harpreet Singh Brar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CWP-11611-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 CWP-11611-2025 Date of decision:27.03.2026 Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. M.S. Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana-State. Ms. Mehak Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Rajni Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik with Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocates for respondents No.4. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P-10) vide which respondents recalled the petitioner from the deputation from office of respondent No.3. Further praying for quashing the impugned order of subsequent transfer of petitioner dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-9) qua the petitioner as per Online Transfer Policy and is violative of rules/law. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.30 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-11611-2025 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, at the very outset, submits that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed and nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition. Learned counsel also produced the copy of letter dated 16.03.2026, which is ordered to be taken on record as Mark ‘X’ and prays that the present writ petition be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.4, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 4. However, it is clarified that in case the factual position, as stated by learned counsel for respondent No.4, is found to be incorrect, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court in accordance with law, within a period of one month from today by reviving the present writ petition. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.03.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.30 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document