CWP-20359-2026 (O&M) 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 CWP-20359-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.07.2026 Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of Driver with all consequential benefits as the petitioner had been awarded Grade-A by the selection committee and respondents have given appointment to the candidates having Grade-A who are younger in age to the petitioner. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide Advertisement dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure P-1), the Transport Department, Haryana had invited applications for filling up 910 posts of Drivers on contract/daily wages. Petitioner was called for Test/Driving Proficiency Test and was declared successful with Grade “A”. The DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20359-2026 (O&M) 2 of 7 respondent-Department had selected 809 candidates against 910 advertised posts of Driver. The petitioner was not declared successful in the final selection list even though he had been awarded Grade “A”. Accordingly, petitioner alongwith other candidates challenged the selection before this Court by way of CWP-13310-2008 titled as Pawan Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others; which was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2008. 3. It is submitted that two other candidates who had also applied for the posts advertised through Advertisement dated 11.7.2007, namely, Sajjan Kumar and Ved Parkash had also filed CWP Nos. 2528 of 2009 and CWP No.15374 of 2010 respectively, which were dismissed on 29.09.2012. Against the said order dated 29.09.2012, LPA No.1231-2012 titled as Sajjan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, and LPA-1255-2012 titled as Ved Parkash vs. State of Haryana and others, were preferred; in which vide judgment dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure P-3), the respondents were directed to give the appointment to the said persons, namely, Sajjan Kumar and Ved Parkash, and that too, from the date when others were appointed. It is submitted that an SLP preferred by the respondent-State against the Division Bench judgment dated 27.05.2014, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is contended that the petitioner being identically situated as above Sajjan Kumar and Ved Parkash, the petitioner also deserves to be appointed from the date when others were appointed. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20359-2026 (O&M) 3 of 7 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and stated that claim of the petitioner is highly belated and further submits that petitioner in this manner cannot claim parity with others as the case of other candidates are distinguishable from that of the petitioner. 5. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. There is no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in view of the fact that aggrieved of his non-selection in the Advertisement dated 11.07.2007, petitioner had preferred CWP-13310- 2008 titled as Pawan Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2008. Admittedly, against the said order, petitioner has not filed any Letters Patent Appeal. The petitioner has shown nothing to this Court that the judgement dated 30.7.2008 was further challenged by the petitioner. The matter has thus attained finality; and the present writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable. 6. Petitioner is now seeking appointment on the strength of judgment dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed in LPA No.1231-2012 titled as Sajjan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, and LPA-1255- 2012 titled as Ved Parkash vs. State of Haryana and others. The said Letters Patent Appeal had been filed by the said other candidates, namely, Sajjan Kumar and Ved Parkash against the dismissal of their CWP DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20359-2026 (O&M) 4 of 7 Nos. 2528 of 2009 and 15374 of 2010. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had also preferred an LPA against order dated 30.07.2008 passed in CWP-13310-2008. As such, petitioner can derive no benefit from the judgment dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure P-3). 7. Even otherwise, claim of the petitioner is barred by delay and laches. In respect of the advertisement dated 11.7.2007, the petitioner is seeking appointment by way of the present writ petition filed in the year 2026; on the basis of Division Bench judgment dated 27.05.2014. Clearly, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable at this belated stage. The said issue of delay as well as the issue regarding parity stand settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 627984, wherein it has been held as under: - “A. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Equality - Extending the benefit of judgments to similar situated persons (fence sitters) - Normal rule is that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently - This rule is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of latches and delay as well as acquiescence - Same would be valid ground to dismiss claim - Exception is inapplicable in cases where judgment pronounced by Court is judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 226 - Appointment - Cancellation of appointment - Challenged - DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20359-2026 (O&M) 5 of 7 Delay and latches - Acquiescence - Cancellation challenged after nine years when some of similarly situated aggrieved persons got relief from Court - Unexplained delay and latches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years - Totally unjust to give appointment after a period of 27 years - Order of High Court allowing claim of appellant set aside.” The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- “23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: (1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. (2) However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20359-2026 (O&M) 6 of 7 treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 8. In not filing LPA against order dated 30.7.2008, the petitioner had clearly acquiesced, and can therefore, not claim parity. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sudhir Bala v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2678248, decided on 11.12.2024; wherein it is held that “Delay and laches in filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can disentitle a petitioner to relief, especially when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in asserting one's rights.” DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20359-2026 (O&M) 7 of 7 9. Keeping in view the above noted factual and legal position, present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 10. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 08.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document