Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondent to appoint him to the post of Male Constable (Driver), a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., disposed of the same and held that the State would look into grievance of the petitioner of his appointment in ex-servicemen category and pass an appropriate order within six months.
In the present case, the petitioner contended that he had served in the CRPF, however, was denied appointment under the Ex-servicemen category. Before this, the petitioner had filed a petition which was dismissed on merits and Letters Patent Appeal was withdrawn with liberty to make representation before the respondent-authorities regarding inclusion of the petitioner in the category of Ex-Servicemen. The petitioner claimed that he filed representation and thus, contended that the present petition was maintainable because the respondent had not decided his representation.
The Court opined that it could not decide question of inclusion of retired officials of Paramilitary Forces (CRPF, BSF, CISF etc.) in the definition of Ex-Serviceman. It was a policy matter, and the State had to decide the issue.
The Court disposed of the petition and ordered the State to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within six months.
[Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 5802, decided on 18-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, Amita Arora, Advocate and Kavita, Advocate
For the Respondents: Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Garima Kuthiala Prashar, Advocate and Chander Mohan Sharma, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
