DARSHAN SINGH vs UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM AND ANOTHER — CWP/26227/2017
Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 12th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010959642017
Next Hearing
16th November 2017
Filing Number
CWP/26227/2017
Filing Date
15-11-2017
Registration No
CWP/26227/2017
Registration Date
15-11-2017
Judge
MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Coram
MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
20.11 - SCOSB (HARYANA) ( 453 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DARSHAN SINGH
Adv. SANGITA DHANDA
Respondent(s)
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM AND ANOTHER
Hearing History
Judge: MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-11-2017 | |
| 30-07-2018 | |
| 15-05-2018 | |
| 19-01-2018 |
Orders
MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA
MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Summary of CWP-26227-2017 (Darshan Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.) The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed three consolidated writ petitions seeking appointment as Assistant Lineman from an expired waiting list. The court held that the waiting list from a 2008 advertisement expired in April 2011 per 1988 Haryana Government instructions, and candidates had no vested right to appointment after expiry. The petitioner's claim was barred by delay and laches, having approached the court in August 2018—over seven years later—and the court rejected parity arguments based on earlier single-bench judgments, which a Division Bench had already distinguished and confined to specific facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of CWP-26227-2017 (Darshan Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.) The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed three consolidated writ petitions seeking appointment as Assistant Lineman from an expired waiting list. The court held that the waiting list from a 2008 advertisement expired in April 2011 per 1988 Haryana Government instructions, and candidates had no vested right to appointment after expiry. The petitioner's claim was barred by delay and laches, having approached the court in August 2018—over seven years later—and the court rejected parity arguments based on earlier single-bench judgments, which a Division Bench had already distinguished and confined to specific facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts