204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CWP-16983-2021 Date of decision: 19.09.2025 Puneet Sangwan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 2) CWP-17125-2021 Kamal Singh Duhan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ankur Dua, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, Asstt.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Arnav Goel, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3-DHBVN. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-16983-2021. 2. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned result dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure P-9) for the post of JSE of DHBVN, Haryana. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.16904 of 2021 titled as ‘Neeraj Vs. State of Haryana and another’ regarding socio economic criteria. Neha 2025.09.19 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16983-2021 CWP-17125-2021 -2- 4. Learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the same that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Neeraj’s case (supra). However, he submits that the review of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, has been sought by filing review application bearing No. RA-CW-379-2025 in CWP No.16904 of 2021. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the issue involved in the present controversy has been authoritatively settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Neeraj’s case (supra) and this Court is bound by the judicial precedent laid down by the Division Bench. Further, mere filing of the review application would not dilute or dislodge the ratio decidendi of the Division Bench judgment in Neeraj’s case (supra). 6. In view of the above, the present civil writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner(s) and pass an appropriate speaking order in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench judgment in Neeraj’s case (supra). However, it is made clear that in case any modification is made in the judgment of the Division Bench in the review application, the benefits, if any, admissible to the petitioner(s), would be subject to the outcome of the same. 7. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 19.09.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.09.19 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document