Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 58293 (PNJ)

JITENDER KUMAR v. VINEET GARG IAS AND OTHERS

COCP/2399/2025 · 2025-08-27

Sudeepti Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

COCP-2399-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 214 COCP-2399-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 27th, 2025 Jitender Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. Vineet Garg IAS and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate Ms. Varsha Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Sheen Dahiya, Advocate Ms. Komal Kalan, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate and Ms. Manisha Nehra, Advocate for the applicant in CM-12522-CII-2025. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed for disobedience of order dated 21.03.2025, passed by this Court in CWP-23624-2022. 2. Relevant portion of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025, is reproduced as under:- “5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commission to recommend the petitioner for appointment as per merit within two weeks; thereupon, the Department will issue letter of appointment to him, subject to fulfilling other requirements, with notional service benefits from the date other selected candidates pursuant to the advertisement SAHIL 2025.09.04 21:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-2399-2025 (O&M) -2- in question have been appointed and actual benefits from the date of joining. These directions are to be carried out within four week of receiving a certified copy of this order.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in the order dated 21.03.2025, directions were given to the Commission to recommend the petitioner for appointment as per merit, subject to fulfilling other requirements. He further contends that EWS certificate of the petitioner dated 31.12.2021 was cancelled by Sub-Tehsildar vide order dated 17.07.2025. In view of the same, the petitioner does not fulfill the conditions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has filed CWP-22362-2025, challenging the cancellation of EWS certificate dated 31.12.2021 by Sub-Tehsildar vide impugned order dated 17.07.2025. 6. In view of the same, as on date there is no disobedience of order dated 21.03.2025, passed by this Court in CWP-23624-2022. 7. Consequently, the present contempt petition is dismissed. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 27.08.2025 Sahil Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SAHIL 2025.09.04 21:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.