CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 February 2026 · Citation: (2026) 02 P&H CK 1857

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jagmohan Bansal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226, 227
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 10298 Of 2006 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 418 words

Jagmohan Bansal, J

1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent treat him eligible for the post of Constable.

2.

On 07.08.2006, the following order was passed:

“Written statement on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 has been filed today in Court. Copy thereof has been given to the counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner was selected in pursuant to the issued on 24.7.2004 for 250 posts of Constables (Male) in District Sonepat in November 2004. He under-went physical test and selection process. On 8.12.2004 he also under went medical examination. However, before he could join, Model Code of Conduct came into force on 17.12.2004. He along with others filed CWP No. 5123 of 2005 titled as Manjit Singh and others vs. State of Haryana on 30.3.2005. During the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition, respondent State repealed Haryana State Industrial Security Force Act,2003, which was notified on 29.6.2005 (Annexure P-3). A new legislation during the pendency of the writ petition was notified on 5.8.2005 and all the writ petitions regarding appointment to Haryana State Industrial Security Force were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take appropriate legal course.

On 3.5.2006 again 3700 posts of General Duty (Male) Constables were advertised in various districts of the State. The petitioner has applied and has also requested for granting the benefit of age relaxation as contemplated by clause c(iii) of para 3 of the advertisement.

At this stage, without going into the controversy and legality of granting relaxation in age, we direct the respondents to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in selection process on the assumption that the petitioner is eligible. We have been apprised that the physical examination is going on and the petitioner has already appeared for physical measurement test some where in June, 2006. However, the result of the petitioner be not declared and shall be produced before us in a sealed cover.

List again on 8.9.2006.”

3.

On 08.09.2006, the respondent produced result of the petitioner in sealed cover which was opened and perused.

4.

Learned State counsel submits that petitioner was not appointed as Constable whereas he has been enrolled as Special Police Officer (SPO) w.e.f. 02.08.2017. He is still working as SPO.

5.

In the backdrop, the petition stands disposed of.

6.

The petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application within three months from today, if cause survives.

7.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.