CWP-19254-2026 and connected matters 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 (2 cases) +131 +132+136 CWP-19254-2026 Date of decision: 07.07.2026 1. Poonam Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CWP-19538-2026 2. Vikram Sareen ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CWP-19582-2026 3. Jashanpreet Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CWP-19587-2026 4. Hakam Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CWP-19887-2026 5. Amit Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ***** ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19254-2026 and connected matters 2 Present: Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, & Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-19254-2026. Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-19538 -2026. Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-19582-2026 & CWP-19587-2026. Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate, with Ms. Navya Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-19887-2026. Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State with Mr. Ritik Chatrath Kapoor, Advocate. Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.4 in CWP-19582-2026 & CWP-19587-2026. Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate, & Ms. Mona Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.4 in CWP-19887-2026. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present bunch of writ petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-19254-2026. 2. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the action of the State for excluding the employees working in the Government and Controlled Board/Corporations who are eligible to compete for the post which are to be filled under the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class-I) Rule, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1976 Rules’) from Register A-II and Register-C. 3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that excluding the petitioners to apply against the posts of P.C.S (Executive) out of Register A-2 and ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19254-2026 and connected matters 3 Register-C from consideration is incorrect as the employees working in the Government owned and controlled Boards/Corporations are at the same footage as the government employees who are working in connection with the State. Learned Senior Counsel submits that one should be given chance to compete for so as to enlarge the scope of competition rather than restricting the same only to the employees who are working with the Government of Punjab. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is discriminatory in nature not to grant a chance to compete for elite post of PCS executive despite working in the Government owned Boards and Corporations. Hence, the advertisement which has been issued on 5th June, 2026, should be quashed so as to direct the State of Punjab to treat the employees of the Government owned and controlled Boards/corporations to be the eligible candidate for selection under Register A-II as well as Register-C as envisaged under 1976 Rules. 4. Notice of motion was issued. 5. The learned State counsel submits that every time when the advertisement is issued qua filling of post under 1976 Rules, the same grievance is raised by the employees of the Government owned and controlled Boards/Corporations and thus this issue is no longer Res-integra and has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench which decision has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel submits that the issue came to be decided by the Division Bench while deciding CWP-10437 of 2014 and other connected cases, decided on 09.03.2017 titled Kanwal Preet Singh Sidhu and others Vs. State of Punjab and others wherein, the same argument raised has been dealt in extensive and declined. Learned State counsel further submits that the same issue was again raised ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19254-2026 and connected matters 4 before the Division Bench in LPA-371 of 2023 titled Kuljit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 11.01.2024 to hold that the employees of the State owned Board and Corporation are not eligible to compete for the post to be filled under Register A-II and Register-C. 6. Learned counsel submits that the said judgment dated 11.01.2024 has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4513-4514 of 2024 decided on 26.02.2024 by which the judgment in LPA No.371 of 2023 was upheld. Learned State counsel submits that immediately upon the issuance of the fresh advertisement in June, 2026, again the same issue has been raised and therefore, the question of law raised in the writ petition already stand decided against the petitioner, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab. 8. It is very unfortunate that every time an advertisement is issued for filling of the post under 1976 Rules, the same issue is raised for the consideration of the post though said issue has already attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It may be noticed that while passing order in Kanwal Preet Singh Sidhu case (Supra), the Division Bench extensively quoted the provision of 1976 Rules and considered the argument whether the employees of the State owned and controlled Board/Corporations can be treated as eligible candidates under 1976 Rules to compete for the post or not. The ultimate view taken by the Court was that as per the provisions of 1976 Rules, the employees of the State owned and controlled ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19254-2026 and connected matters 5 Boards/Corporations are not eligible and the writ petitions were dismissed. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under: “Learned Single Bench has referred to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in Kanwal Preet Singh Sidhu and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2017(3) SCT 454 where the identical issue was examined by the Coordinate Bench and held that the employees of Boards and Corporations do not fall within the meaning of “State Government Employees” and they are not eligible for recruitment to PCS (Executive Branch) under Register- C. In paragraph 24 to 27, the observation of the Division Bench is as under:- “24. The expression `serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab' contained in sub-Rule (1) of Rule 15 necessarily means to those persons only who are serving under the State Government. A person can be said to be serving under the Government and in connection with the affairs of a State when his conditions of service are governed under the Rules framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In The State of Assam and others vs Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “.......A person holding a post under the State was a person serving or employed in a State and under its administrative control. There was a relationship of Master and servant between the State and the person said to be holding a post under it........” Since conditions of service of the petitioners in PSPCL are admittedly not regulated by any such Rules and there is no relationship of master and servant between such employees and the State of Punjab, they cannot claim themselves to be the persons serving under the State of Punjab. 25. Similarly, the expression 'serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab' necessarily means assignment of the duties in furtherance of the constitutional obligations and responsibilities of a State and which cannot be entrusted to private entities. The sale and supply of electricity power is no ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19254-2026 and connected matters 6 longer an exclusive domain of the State though the State may at any time enter into commercial or business ventures and compete with private entities in larger public interest. 26. The question whether the employees of Statutory Boards/Corporations hold civil post under the Union or State can be effectively answered keeping in view the following parameters laid down in one or the other binding precedent:- (a) A Corporation/Board has its own separate and independent existence and is a different entity from the State, with its own property and fund; (b) It makes little difference if the State holds majority shares of the Corporation and controls its administration by Policy directive or otherwise; (c) It also makes hardly any difference if the Corporation adopts or copies the State Service Rules to govern conditions of service of its employees; (d) Although the ownership, control and management of the Corporation/Board may, in fact, be vested in the State, yet in the eyes of law the Corporation/Board is its own master and is a separate entity and its employees, therefore, do not hold a civil post under the State. (e) The only exception can be where the power to create or abolish a post in the Board/Corporation entirely vests in the State and the State pays the holder of such post out of its own funds, that the incumbent of the said post can claims to be the holder of a civil post under the State. Applying these principles to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, none of the petitioners can be said to be serving under the State.” 27. The petitioners cannot claim parity with the employees of Punjab Vidhan Sabha or High Court as both the Institutions are creation of the Constitution. So long as their administrative heads have agreed to the applicability of Punjab Civil Services Rules for the purpose of regulating the conditions of service of their ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19254-2026 and connected matters 7 employees, the State is right in urging that the employees of these two organs would fall within the expression of `State Government Employees' and thus eligible for recruitment to PCS(EB) under `Register -C'.” 9. The same issue was again raised before the Division Bench in LPA-371 of 2023 titled as Kuljit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 11.01.2024. While placing reliance upon the judgment of the earlier Division Bench in Kanwal Preet Singh Sidhu case (supra) the said LPA was dismissed holding that the employees of the State controlled and owned Board/Corporations are not eligible to compete for the post as envisaged to be filled under Register A-II/C under 1976 Rules. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to deny the same fact especially when Mr. D. V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate also appeared and raised the same contention before the Division Bench in Kanwal Preet Singh Sidhu’s case, hence, raising the same issue again for the consideration is not made out. 11. If such issue is raised again and again by petitioners qua the same action of the State for the consideration of this Court despite settled law, rejection of such plea should be made by imposing costs on the litigating parties. Once, the issue in hand was settled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, raising the same again is not appreciated. 12. Learned Senior counsel submits that the said issue is raised as the Division Bench while deciding CWP-19589 of 2012 decided on 26.03.2013 titled Sukhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another which judgment gave some parity to the employees of the State owned Board/Corporations to claim the same benefit. It may be noticed that the judgment of in Sukhwinder ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19254-2026 and connected matters 8 Singh(supra) was decided prior to the judgment of Division Bench in judgment Kanwal Preet Singh Sidhu’s case (supra) and the said judgment of Sukhwinder Singh (Supra) has been taken note of Division Bench in Kamal Preet Singh Sidhu (Supra) and rejected the argument which are now being again raised for the consideration of this case before this Court. 13. Keeping in view the said fact where the issue raised has already attained finality, filing the writ petition again to agitate the same issue in order to get a different judgment is not appreciated. Further, once two Division Benches have already considered the issue in hand and rejected the same, asking for a different view by the petitioner in similar facts as have already been settled is not made out. Judicial propriety also requires the Court to follow the judgments that have already settled the issue and not deviate from the settled position of law. 14. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances where the petitioner concede before this Court that similar issue raised already stand decided by the two Division Bench detail of which have been mentioned hereinbefore, no question arises for consideration of the said prayer in the present case so as to allow the same. Keeping in view the detailed reason given by the Division Bench in Kanwal Preet Singh Sidhu’s case (Supra) which reasons were followed by the subsequent Division Bench in Kuljit Singh and another case (Supra) which judgment has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the present bunch of petitions is also dismissed in same terms. 15. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19254-2026 and connected matters 9 16. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case(s). (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 07, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) anil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document