REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Nachhatter Singh Appellant

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DES RAJ AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
RATTIRAM AND OTHERS V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED]
MANAK LAL ADVOCATE VS. PREM CHAND SINGHVI [REFERRED]
DAL AT ABASAHEB SOLUNKE VS. DRB S MAHAJAN [REFERRED]
NATIONAL AND GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY [REFERRED]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED]
LILA DHAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
JAVID RASOOL BHAT VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED]
ASHOK KUMAR YADAV STATE OF HARYANA D R CHAUDHARY MEMBER VS. STATE OF HARYANA:SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA:ASHOK KUMAR YADAV [REFERRED]
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA VS. AKHILESH KUMAR SHUKLA [REFERRED]
DURGACHARAN MISRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. GURNAM KAUR [REFERRED]
MOHINDER SAIN GARG DAVINDER PRITPAL SINGH BALWINDER SINGH CHIRANJI LAL SHARMA CHARANJIT SINGH RAJESH KUMAR SAILI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
MADANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED]
KRUSHNACHANDRASAHU VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION NATIONAL FEDERATION OF STATE BANK OFFICERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
VIRENDER S HOODA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
ADARSH KUMARIBHARTI VS. K N SINHA [REFERRED]
KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
SHAM LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
SATBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
BISHNU BISWAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
KRISHAN GOPAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
KESHAV KAUSHIK ETC VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions have been clubbed together as they all seek quashing of the selection process conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Commission") for appointment to the PCS (Executive Branch) (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Service") from Register 'C' in the year 1994, in respect of vacancies that occurred in 1991. They further seek a writ of mandamus to the respondentState to consider the claim of each of the three petitioners in these cases for appointment to the said service, in accordance with the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class-I) Rules, 1976 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Rules"), according to merit, in Register 'C' and still further, for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent-State from giving effect to the appointments of respondents No.5 to 7 in CWP Nos.4413 of 1995 and 10070 of 1995, who are respondents No.6 to 8 in CWP No.7359 of 1995 (For the sake of convenience, they would hereinafter be referred to as respondents No.5 to 7).

(2.) All the said respondents, i.e. respondents No.5 to 7 in CWP Nos.4413 of 1995 and 10070 of 1995, are the same three persons, i.e. S./Sh. Daljit Singh, Jagdish Chander Sabharwal and Navtej Singh, whose appointment to the PCS (Executive Branch) has been challenged by the petitioners. A stay order, to the following effect, was passed by a Division Bench on 24.03.1995, at the time of issuance of notice:-

(3.) At the outset, before proceedings to narrate the facts, as given in the petitions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules, as amended vide notification of the respondent-Government dated 07.03.1989.

Click here to view full judgment.

NACHHATTER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address