Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Selection of Disabled Candidate as Kanungo; Declines Interference After 26 Years of Service
Case Name: Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 24 December 2025
Citation: CWP-10007-1999
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Kanungo under the physically handicapped category. The Court held that the selected candidate was duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange, fulfilled the disability criteria, participated in the written test and interview, and secured the highest merit. The Court further held that the selection process did not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference, particularly after the selected candidate had served the State for over two decades.
Summary: The petitioner, a person with 45% disability, challenged the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Kanungo against a vacancy reserved for physically handicapped persons, contending that respondent No.4 was neither disabled nor sponsored by the Employment Exchange and had not appeared in the selection process. It was further alleged that the disability certificate produced by respondent No.4 was not genuine and that his selection was dehors the prescribed procedure.
The State and the selected candidate opposed the petition, asserting that the post was duly advertised on 24 March 1999, that respondent No.4 was registered with the Employment Exchange, Faridkot, and that his name was sponsored through a supplementary list dated 9 April 1999. It was shown that respondent No.4 appeared in the written test and interview held on 15 April 1999, secured the highest marks, and was selected on merit. The respondents also pointed out that the petitioner was over-aged as on the date of advertisement and lacked locus to challenge the selection.
The Court noted that although an earlier judgment had set aside the selection on the premise that the sponsorship list was doctored, the Division Bench had remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, permitting parties to place complete records on file. Upon re-examination, the Court found that the Employment Exchange had indeed sponsored 20 candidates on 7 April 1999 and had additionally sponsored respondent No.4 through a supplementary letter dated 9 April 1999. The consolidation of both letters into a single list was held to be an inadvertent administrative irregularity not affecting the legality of the selection.
On the issue of disability, the Court recorded that respondent No.4 had been medically examined on multiple occasions by different medical boards, including PGIMER, Chandigarh, and was consistently found to have more than 40% permanent disability. Vigilance inquiries initiated at the behest of the petitioner were also found to be baseless. The Court held that the disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Faridkot, was genuine and valid.
The Court further held that the petitioner had locus standi to file the petition since his candidature was considered, but no merit was found in the challenge to the selection. Given that respondent No.4 had served as Kanungo and later as Naib Tehsildar for approximately 26 years, the Court observed that his appointment could not be unsettled at such a belated stage in the absence of compelling illegality.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Kanungo under the physically handicapped category were upheld.