BALWINDER SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CWP/13490/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 1950. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 04-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010730562026

e-Filing Number

29-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/26208/2026

Filing Date

29-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/13490/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Namit Kumar

Coram

Mr. Justice Namit Kumar

Bench Type

Single

Category

68.11 - SERVICE-SECONDARY EDU-PUNJAB (PGT) ( 772 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 1950

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BALWINDER SINGH

    Adv. Amandeep Singh Nirmaan

  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.SCHOOL EDUCATION PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Namit KumarView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Balwinder Singh's petition for mandamus to secure appointment as Physical Education Lecturer based on his high merit score (72.125 marks) in a 2006 selection process. The court rejected the claim due to gross delay and laches—the petitioner approached the court after approximately 20 years, having accepted a contractual teaching position in 2010 and regularized services in 2019 in the interim. The court held that entertaining such a belated claim would unsettle settled rights and disturb recruitment finality, applying established principles that equity favors the vigilant and that unexplained delays coupled with creation of third-party rights disentitle petitioners from discretionary relief under Article 226. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/13490/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Balwinder Singh's petition for mandamus to secure appointment as Physical Education Lecturer based on his high merit score (72.125 marks) in a 2006 selection process. The court rejected the claim due to gross delay and laches—the petitioner approached the court after approximately 20 years, having accepted a contractual teaching position in 2010 and regularized services in 2019 in the interim. The court held that entertaining such a belated claim would unsettle settled rights and disturb recruitment finality, applying established principles that equity favors the vigilant and that unexplained delays coupled with creation of third-party rights disentitle petitioners from discretionary relief under Article 226. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case