Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea for Notional Seniority; Says Claim Barred by Constructive Res Judicata and Delay
Case Name: Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab & Others
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: CWP-32080-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Scheduled Caste ex-serviceman seeking notional appointment from the date his juniors were appointed as constables in 2012–13, holding the claim barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata and delay. Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that since the petitioner’s earlier writ (CWP-17133-2012) had already resulted in his appointment under the Scheduled Caste category in 2020, a subsequent demand for retrospective notional benefits was not maintainable.
Summary: The petitioner, Harnek Singh, an ex-Army serviceman belonging to the Sikh Ramdasia (SC) category, was discharged from service on 01.04.2012 and applied for the post of Constable, disclosing his Scheduled Caste status in the application form. However, due to non-attachment of the SC certificate, his candidature was considered under the General category, and candidates lower in merit under the SC quota were selected. He challenged the rejection order dated 12.07.2012 in CWP-17133-2012, which the Court allowed on 21.08.2019, directing the authorities to appoint him under the SC category within two months.
The authorities complied by issuing an appointment letter dated 07.07.2020, which he accepted and joined service. Nearly five years later, in 2025, he filed the present writ seeking notional seniority and pay benefits from 2012–13, claiming parity with his batchmates. Justice Bansal held that the petitioner’s claim was barred by constructive res judicata since the earlier writ had been fully adjudicated, and the relief now sought could have been raised then. The Court also noted a delay of more than a decade from the original cause of action, invoking the principle of laches.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the finality of the 2019 order and holding that the petitioner’s claim for notional seniority and retrospective benefits was untenable.