SATWINDER SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CWP/9777/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 02-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010535052026

e-Filing Number

30-03-2026

Filing Number

CWP/18784/2026

Filing Date

30-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/9777/2026

Registration Date

30-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Namit Kumar

Coram

Mr. Justice Namit Kumar

Bench Type

Single

Category

68.4 - SERVICE EDU-PUNJAB(PRIMARY) ( 793 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATWINDER SINGH

    Adv. NITESH SINGLA

  2. 2.State of Punjab And Another

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.State of Punjab And Another

  3. 3.Director Public Instructions

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Namit KumarView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of Satwinder Singh's petition seeking re-adjustment against vacant stations by directing the Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education) to consider and decide the petitioner's pending legal notice dated 09.02.2026 expeditiously. The court ordered a reasoned decision with opportunity of hearing to be passed preferably within 3 months, without adjudicating the case merits, as the respondent-State had no objection to this procedural direction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/9777/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of Satwinder Singh's petition seeking re-adjustment against vacant stations by directing the Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education) to consider and decide the petitioner's pending legal notice dated 09.02.2026 expeditiously. The court ordered a reasoned decision with opportunity of hearing to be passed preferably within 3 months, without adjudicating the case merits, as the respondent-State had no objection to this procedural direction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case