CWP-26251-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (1) Hardeep Singh and others Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others (2) Devender Kumar Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others (3) Balwan and others Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present : 2024 ( O&M ) and connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Hardeep Singh and others Versus Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others Kumar and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others Balwan and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others Reserved on : 25.04 Date of Pronouncement : CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate, Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-26285 Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate, and Ms. Swati Tiwana, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-26251 Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-28393 Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh, with Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Senior Pane Ms. Isha Bhukal, Advocate, Ms. Sukhmani Patwalia, Advocate, and Mr. Hakikat Grewal, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26251-2024 ( O&M ) …….Petitioner Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others ...….Respondents CWP-26285-2024 ( O&M ) …….Petitioner Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others ...….Respondents CWP-28393-2024 ( O&M ) …….Petitioners Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others ...….Respondents 25.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate, Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Advocate, 26285-2024. Advocate, and 26251-2024. Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate, 28393-2024. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh, with Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Senior Panel Counsel (through V.C.), Ms. Sukhmani Patwalia, Advocate, and Mr. Hakikat Grewal, Advocate, 2024 ( O&M ) …….Petitioners ...….Respondents ( O&M ) …….Petitioners ...….Respondents 2024 ( O&M ) …….Petitioners ...….Respondents Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh, with NAROTAM DASS 2025.06.23 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-26251-2 SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. based essentially on same set of facts and grounds and, thus, are being decided by this common order. 2. Constitution of India is to which Central Admini dealing with M.A. No. 2138/2024 in O.A. 568/2023, has rejected prayer of the petitioners herein grant of interim relief of stay of on 05.10.2024 and 06.10.2024 order dated 30.08.2024 of status quo in respect of earlier notice dated 23.08.2024 3. 77 in CWP O.A.s No. 5 Police Department under Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration 2007-08. The petitioners, who claim to be due f Head Constable, preferred two different O.A.s, numbered as 568/2023 and 592/2023, seeking quashment of circulars dated 31.05.2023 and 15.06.2023, by which the petitioners herein were directed to submit their willingness if they are interested various grounds in the said O.A.s was also sought of notification dated 18.06.2021, vide which Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Head Constable were amended. 2024 ( O&M ) and connected matters SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE These three petitions raise common questions of law and are essentially on same set of facts and grounds and, thus, are being decided by this common order. Challenge in these petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to two separate order which Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, while dealing with M.A. No. 2134/2024 in O.A. No. 592/2023 and M.A. No. 2138/2024 in O.A. 568/2023, has rejected prayer of the petitioners herein interim relief of stay of notice dated 27.09.2024 sc on 05.10.2024 and 06.10.2024, with an alternative prayer to clarify interim order dated 30.08.2024 of status quo in respect of earlier notice dated 23.08.2024. The petitioners, who are numbered 249 (13 in CWP 77 in CWP-27285-2024 and 159 in CWP- O.A.s No. 568/2023 and 592/2023, substantively hold the post of Constable in Police Department under Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration . The petitioners, who claim to be due f Head Constable, preferred two different O.A.s, numbered as 568/2023 and , seeking quashment of circulars dated 31.05.2023 and 15.06.2023, by which the petitioners herein were directed to submit their willingness if are interested to appear in B-1 test (under 25% quota). Quashment on various grounds in the said O.A.s was also sought of notification dated 18.06.2021, vide which Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Head Constable were amended. -2- These three petitions raise common questions of law and are essentially on same set of facts and grounds and, thus, are being decided Challenge in these petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the orders, both dated 03.10.2024, vide strative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, while 2134/2024 in O.A. No. 592/2023 and M.A. No. 2138/2024 in O.A. 568/2023, has rejected prayer of the petitioners herein otice dated 27.09.2024 scheduling B-1 test , with an alternative prayer to clarify interim order dated 30.08.2024 of status quo in respect of earlier notice dated numbered 249 (13 in CWP-26251-2024, -28393-2024), and are applicants in /2023, substantively hold the post of Constable in Police Department under Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, since . The petitioners, who claim to be due for promotion to the post of Head Constable, preferred two different O.A.s, numbered as 568/2023 and , seeking quashment of circulars dated 31.05.2023 and 15.06.2023, by which the petitioners herein were directed to submit their willingness if 1 test (under 25% quota). Quashment on various grounds in the said O.A.s was also sought of notification dated 18.06.2021, vide which Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Head These three petitions raise common questions of law and are essentially on same set of facts and grounds and, thus, are being decided Challenge in these petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the dated 03.10.2024, vide strative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, while 2134/2024 in O.A. No. 592/2023 and M.A. No. 2138/2024 in O.A. 568/2023, has rejected prayer of the petitioners herein for 1 test , with an alternative prayer to clarify interim order dated 30.08.2024 of status quo in respect of earlier notice dated 2024, 2024), and are applicants in /2023, substantively hold the post of Constable in , since or promotion to the post of Head Constable, preferred two different O.A.s, numbered as 568/2023 and , seeking quashment of circulars dated 31.05.2023 and 15.06.2023, by which the petitioners herein were directed to submit their willingness if 1 test (under 25% quota). Quashment on various grounds in the said O.A.s was also sought of notification dated 18.06.2021, vide which Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Head NAROTAM DASS 2025.06.23 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-26251-2 4. Tribunal, is that being appointees of 2007 compete in the said promotion Constable. 4.1 prayer for interim relief was made, which has been declined by the orders challenged in these petitions. 5. jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal being constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is a statutory dealing with service matters Tribunal comprises not only administrative and service law as Administrative Members the Judicial Member in the process of adjudication of 5.1 this Court in its limited writ and supervisory jurisdiction ought not to interfere in orders legitimately passed by the Tribunal. 5.2 circumstances of the case, cannot be a good reason to invoke writ supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. view of information supplied by learned Senior Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh, that both the aforesaid O.A.s are likely to be finally heard in the near future, this Court refrains from making any comment on 2024 ( O&M ) and connected matters One of the basic contentions of the petitioners, raised before the Tribunal, is that being appointees of 2007 compete in the said promotion test with fresh recruitees in the cadre of Constable. While the aforesaid two O.A.s were pending befo prayer for interim relief was made, which has been declined by the orders challenged in these petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not pointed out any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal being constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is a statutory dealing with service matters inter alia of employees of Union of India. The Tribunal comprises not only of a Judicial Member, but also experts in administrative and service law as Administrative Members the Judicial Member in the process of adjudication of Unless and until the petitioners point out any jurisdictional error, this Court in its limited writ and supervisory jurisdiction ought not to interfere orders legitimately passed by the Tribunal. Merely because another view is possible in th circumstances of the case, cannot be a good reason to invoke writ supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution In view of the above, this Court declines interference and also in f information supplied by learned Senior Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh, that both the aforesaid O.A.s are likely to be finally heard in the near future, this Court refrains from making any comment on -3- ntions of the petitioners, raised before the Tribunal, is that being appointees of 2007-08, they cannot be expected test with fresh recruitees in the cadre of While the aforesaid two O.A.s were pending before Tribunal, prayer for interim relief was made, which has been declined by the orders Learned counsel for the petitioners have not pointed out any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal being constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is a statutory b of employees of Union of India. The a Judicial Member, but also experts in administrative and service law as Administrative Members, who aid and assist the Judicial Member in the process of adjudication of service matters. Unless and until the petitioners point out any jurisdictional error, this Court in its limited writ and supervisory jurisdiction ought not to interfere orders legitimately passed by the Tribunal. Merely because another view is possible in the given facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be a good reason to invoke writ supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution In view of the above, this Court declines interference and also in f information supplied by learned Senior Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh, that both the aforesaid O.A.s are likely to be finally heard in the near future, this Court refrains from making any comment on ntions of the petitioners, raised before the d to test with fresh recruitees in the cadre of re Tribunal, prayer for interim relief was made, which has been declined by the orders Learned counsel for the petitioners have not pointed out any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal being body of employees of Union of India. The a Judicial Member, but also experts in , who aid and assist Unless and until the petitioners point out any jurisdictional error, this Court in its limited writ and supervisory jurisdiction ought not to interfere e given facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be a good reason to invoke writ or supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution In view of the above, this Court declines interference and also in f information supplied by learned Senior Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh, that both the aforesaid O.A.s are likely to be finally heard in the near future, this Court refrains from making any comment on NAROTAM DASS 2025.06.23 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-26251-2 merits and relegates the petitioners before the Tribunal. 6.1 of the matter 592/2023, as expeditiously as possible, without being of the petitioners having approached this Court and passing of this order. 7. June 23, 20 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2024 ( O&M ) and connected matters merits and relegates the petitioners to pursue their respective O.A. before the Tribunal. This Court hastens to add that we have not commented on merits of the matter but we expect the Tribunal to decide O.A.s No. , as expeditiously as possible, without being of the petitioners having approached this Court and passing of this order. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- to pursue their respective O.A.s pending This Court hastens to add that we have not commented on merits we expect the Tribunal to decide O.A.s No. 568/2023 and , as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by the factum of the petitioners having approached this Court and passing of this order. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SUMEET GOEL ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No pending This Court hastens to add that we have not commented on merits 568/2023 and influenced by the factum NAROTAM DASS 2025.06.23 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment