RAJPAL vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Advocate - A.G. HARYANA — CWP/16322/2021

Case under Constitution of India Section 1. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 24-Aug-2021

CNR: PHHC010757832021

Filing Number

CWP/28211/2021

Filing Date

19-Aug-2021

Registration No

CWP/16322/2021

Registration Date

20-Aug-2021

Judge

Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa

Coram

Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa

Bench Type

Single

Category

58.21 - SERVICE-HARYANA POLICE ( 713 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJPAL

    Adv. JAI PARKASH DHULL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Advocate - A.G. HARYANA

  2. 2.ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

  3. 3.INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

  4. 4.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh NalwaView PDF

    The petitioner sought promotion to Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) under the SC category with consequential benefits. The State of Haryana filed a reply showing that via order dated 11.10.2023, the petitioner had already been granted deemed promotion dates to Head Constable (30.10.2004), ASI (14.09.2008), and Sub Inspector (10.01.2018). The High Court disposed of the petition as infructuous since the petitioner's prayers had been substantially granted, with liberty to revive if any cause remained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Aug-2021

    Other

  4. 19-Aug-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/16322/2021

casestatus.in Summary

The petitioner sought promotion to Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) under the SC category with consequential benefits. The State of Haryana filed a reply showing that via order dated 11.10.2023, the petitioner had already been granted deemed promotion dates to Head Constable (30.10.2004), ASI (14.09.2008), and Sub Inspector (10.01.2018). The High Court disposed of the petition as infructuous since the petitioner's prayers had been substantially granted, with liberty to revive if any cause remained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case