Cleared all police tests but lost job before joining; man wins case in HC

Getting a occupation is nary casual task, and losing it to untoward circumstances is unfortunate. One specified lawsuit is of a Mr Rawal who got selected but couldn’t study wrong the specified time, and hence mislaid his job.

He filed a lawsuit successful the High tribunal and won backmost his job.According to an ET report, pursuing an advertisement connected June 28, 2024, Mr Rawal submitted his exertion for a Constable presumption and completed the Common Eligibility Test. He successfully cleared some this trial and a consequent carnal measurement assessment. However, erstwhile the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued him a telephone missive requiring him to articulation wrong 30 days, helium failed to study for duty.The circumstances preventing Rawal's joining were related to his being successful judicial custody pursuing the registration of an FIR against him. Despite the court's eventual quashing of this FIR, the prescribed joining day and 30-day reporting play had already lapsed.Also Read | Income Tax section imposes Rs 2.2 lakh punishment connected retired authorities worker for gratuity taxation exemption assertion - however she won lawsuit successful ITATConsequently, Rawal initiated ineligible proceedings nether Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to situation the bid dated September 8, 2025, which had denied his petition to presume the Constable position.

What’s the lawsuit about?

As per the ET report, the series of events revealed that aft Rawal's palmy completion of the CET and carnal measurement test, helium qualified for the cognition test.Shortly thereafter, helium reported an incidental wherever 9 co-villagers allegedly attacked his household owed to section factional disputes. This led to the registration of FIR No.232 connected September 26, 2024, astatine the Panipat Police Station, invoking Sections 115, 126, 190, 191(3) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) against the accused individuals.The authorities lodged a transverse FIR (FIR No. 234 dated September 28, 2024 nether Sections 109(1), 115, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) of BNS) astatine the Panipat Police Station against Rawal and his household members, 2 days aft the incidental occurred.Subsequently, Rawal initiated ineligible proceedings (CRM-M-18856-2025) to nullify FIR No. 234, citing a compromise statement arsenic the basis.Through an bid dated May 19, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court invalidated the aforementioned FIR based connected the compromise reached betwixt parties.Also Read | Rs 8 lakh currency deposited successful slope - antheral gets taxation notice! Assessing serviceman deems it presumptive concern income, but payer wins lawsuit successful ITAT - ruling explainedPrior to the FIR's dismissal, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission had published the selected candidates' database connected October 17, 2024, valid for 1 year. Police authorities notified him of his enactment connected November 11, 2024 and November 20, 2024, requesting him to commence service.Due to his judicial custody, his household requested an extension. Rawal submitted a idiosyncratic petition for hold done correspondence dated March 7, 2025.On July 16, 2025, the DGP transmitted Rawal's missive to the Superintendent of Police, instructing information of his lawsuit according to Rule 12.18 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the authorities of Haryana).The Superintendent of Police, responsive No.3, declined the candidate's application, citing authorities directives dated September 13, 2019, which stipulate a 30-day maximum play for assuming duties successful caller appointments. The authorities counsel of Haryana clarified to the tribunal that the pending FIR oregon apprehension were not the grounds for withholding the assignment letter. The rejection stemmed from the candidate's non-compliance with the 30-day joining model from the notification date.The authorities typical indicated that the joining notification was issued connected November 20, 2024. Subsequently, the candidate's begetter submitted a written petition connected March 7, 2025, seeking an hold of the joining date.

The authorities guidelines dated September 13, 2019, explicitly bounds the joining play to 30 days.Also Read | Landlord vs tenant eviction case: Supreme Court rules successful favour of landlord contempt tenant’s lad not signing rent receipts - here’s what the ruling meansThe authorities counsel emphasised that the petitioner's inability to articulation wrong the prescribed 30-day timeframe invalidated immoderate consequent attempts to presume the position. The responsive indispensable adhere to authorities authorities regulations, which consequently prevents the petitioner from joining.On October 13, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a ruling successful Rawal's favour.

Why the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled successful the candidate’s favour

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, successful its ruling (CWP-28252-2025), clarified that Rule 12.18 of PPR addresses circumstances erstwhile candidates look transgression implications. The tribunal noted that the State counsel acknowledged that the petitioner (Rawal) was not affected by immoderate antagonistic conditions outlined successful this Rule. His assignment was rejected solely due to the fact that helium failed to articulation wrong the stipulated 30-day play aft receiving the assignment letter.The High Court observed that the responsive (government) denied the petitioner (Rawal) from joining work based connected aforementioned directives, which were not statutory successful nature.The tribunal highlighted that Rule 12.18 of Punjab Police Rules (PPR) specifically deals with situations wherever candidates are implicated successful transgression matters. However, the antagonistic provisions of this Rule did not use to the petitioner's (Rawal) situation.The High Court of Punjab and Haryana stated: "It is simply a settled proposition of instrumentality that instructions are binding connected authorities, however, Courts are not bound by instructions."The High Court noted that regularisation 12.18(3) of PPR specifically addresses the existent concern and does not mandate a 30-day joining period. The tribunal observed that without statutory provisions, departmental guidelines could beryllium considered directory alternatively than mandatory, additionally noting that courts are not bound by departmental directives.The Court expressed its considered presumption that the 30-day play specified successful the instructions should not beryllium applied successful a rigid manner.The High Court asserted: "The trouble of the campaigner indispensable beryllium considered holistically and pragmatically. The instructions cannot beryllium treated arsenic sacrosanct to contradict substantive payment of appointment. It is simply a good known information that determination is scarcity of jobs successful the country. The petitioner has cleared a rigorous enactment process, thus, it would not beryllium conscionable and just to contradict him occupation accidental connected relationship of procedural lapse/delay.

"In its deliberation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued the pursuing directive: "In the aftermath of the supra factual position, this Court is of the considered sentiment that impugned bid deserves to beryllium acceptable speech and accordingly acceptable aside. The responsive is hereby directed to contented an assignment missive to the petitioner wrong 2 weeks from contiguous and licence him to articulation taxable to compliance of different presumption and conditions of the assignment letter.

Allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of."Also Read | Income Tax section doubts Rs 10 lakh acquisition - member gets taxation announcement for currency received from sisters; however helium appealed & won the case