Rohit Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1
LPA-3115 of 2026 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

122
LPA-3115 of 2026 (O&M)

Reserved on: 30.10.2026
Pronounced on: 05.11.2026
Uploaded on 11.11.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or the full judgment is pronouned: Full judgment

ROHIT KUMAR
…..Appellant

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.

… Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR

Present: Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Deepak Vashisth, Deputy Advocate General Haryana.



RAJESH GAUR, J.

1. Present intra-Court Appeal has been filed under clause X of the
Letters Patent assailing the judgment dated 21.07.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge in CWP-22145 of 2026, whereby the writ petition preferred by the
appellant, namely, Rohit Kumar, was dismissed.

2. The brief issue involved in the present case pertains to the
appointment of respondent No. 6, namely, Rajat Kumar, as Chowkidar of
Village Shahpur Nurhad, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. The Deputy
Commissioner initiated the process for appointment to the post of Chowkidar
for the aforesaid village vide order dated 12.12.2023. Pursuant thereto, the
Assistant Collector Grade-II-cum-Deputy Tehsildar, Naraingarh, invited
applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the said post. In
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.11.11 11:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
LPA-3115 of 2026 (O&M)

response thereto, 21 applications were received. It is pertinent to mention that
all the candidates appeared before the Assistant Collector Grade-II-cum-Deputy
Tehsildar, Naraingarh, during the selection process. After considering the
candidature of all applicants, the Assistant Collector Grade-II-cum-Deputy
Tehsildar, Naraingarh, recommended the name of the appellant, namely, Rohit
Kumar, for appointment to the post of Chowkidar of the aforesaid village vide
order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-4).

3. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Naraingarh, also
recommended the name of the appellant vide order dated 05.11.2024 and
directed him to appear before the District Collector, Ambala on 18.12.2024.
However, disregarding the aforesaid recommendation, the Deputy
Commissioner, Ambala, proceeded to appoint respondent No. 6, Rajat Kumar,
as Chowkidar vide order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-7).

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid appointment, appellant preferred an
appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala,
which came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-9). The
appellant thereafter approached the learned Single Judge by way of a writ
petition, however, the same was also dismissed. Hence, the present Letters
Patent Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is 12th-
grade pass and possesses a diploma in computer applications. He is
approximately 19 years of age and has been residing in the village, where he has
remained readily available to discharge the duties attached to the post of
Chowkidar. It is further contended that the appellant's candidature was duly
considered and recommended by the competent authorities after following the
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.11.11 11:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
LPA-3115 of 2026 (O&M)

prescribed procedure. However, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ambala,
without assigning cogent reasons for disregarding the said recommendation,
proceeded to appoint respondent No. 6, Rajat Kumar, to the post of Chowkidar
of the aforesaid village.

6. Upon examination of the matter, we find that the learned Divisional
Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner have duly considered the
respective claims of the candidates, including their educational qualifications
and other relevant credentials, and have assigned well-founded reasons for
appointing respondent No. 6 as Chowkidar of the aforesaid village.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd.
and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan’, 2010 (9) SCC 496 ; ‘Union of India
and others v. N.P. Dhamania and others’, 1995 (1) SCT 394 ; and ‘Jatinder
Kumar v. State of Punjab’, 1985 (1) SCC 122 .

7.1 However, the judgements cited by the appellant do not advance his
case. The ratio in M/s Kranti Associates (supra) pertains to the significance of
a Speaking Order, made on the basis of succinct reasons. The specific paragraph
as relied upon by the appellant, comprehensively enumerates the role of
plausible reasons in fair decision making, and adjudicating justice. The
jurisprudence as developed in this judgement is earnestly countenanced by this
bench. We find that even in the present case, both learned Divisional
Commissioner and learned Deputy Commissioner have issued their orders after
carefully examining various criteria such as age, educational qualification and
ready availability. They have further thoroughly recorded each candidate’s
position in respect of the aforementioned criteria.
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.11.11 11:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
LPA-3115 of 2026 (O&M)


7.2 Appellant further relied upon the decision in N.P. Dhamania
(supra), the facts of which, do not substantiate with the matrix of the present
matter, as we currently address the issue of appointment to the post of
Chowkidar, whereas the issue in aforementioned judgement was of appointment
on promotion to the Level II of Senior Administrative Grade of the ITS. The
specific paragraph relied upon by the appellant, again delves into the importance
of a well-reasoned order. Hence, this judgement does not facilitate the
appellant’s case.

7.3 The appellant concludingly relied upon the judgment in Jatinder
Kumar (supra), which prima facie sits at one eighty degrees from the appellant’s
plea. The specific paragraph that the appellant emphasises on, states that merely
the process of selection does not by itself create a right in favour of the
candidate, and that the superior authority may or may not accept the
recommendations of the sub-ordinate authority.

8. Rule 3 of the Haryana Chowkidara (Watchman) Amendment
Rules, 2018, lays down the criteria for appointment to the post of Chowkidar,
whereas Rule 4 of the 2018 Rules vests the authority to select a village
watchman, in the Deputy Commissioner, who is required to make a
proclamation in the village, invite applications from eligible candidates and
undertake the selection in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

9. The Deputy Commissioner, being the competent authority, is not
bound by the recommendations made by the subordinate authorities and is
entitled to independently assess the comparative merit and suitability of the
candidates. The decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner upon due
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.11.11 11:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
LPA-3115 of 2026 (O&M)

consideration of the relevant material is entitled to due weightage and ought not
to be interfered with by the Courts.

10. It is a settled proposition of law that selection and appointment to
the post of Chowkidar falls within the domain of the competent authority,
namely, the Collector. The decision so taken by the competent authority
deserves judicial deference and is not ordinarily open to interference by the
Courts unless the same is demonstrated to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness
or any other legal infirmity.

11. The aforesaid position has also been affirmed by this Court in LPA-
2058 of 2026 titled ‘Neeraj Kumar v. State of Haryana and others ’, decided
on 17.08.2026; LPA-1871 of 2026 titled ‘Bijender v. State of Haryana and
others ’, decided on 22.07.2026 ; and LPA-2830 of 2026 titled ‘Bharat Singh v.
State of Haryana and others ’, decided on 30.09.2026 .

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does
not find any illegality, perversity or error of law in the judgment dated
21.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, present appeal is
dismissed.

13. All pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) (RAJESH GAUR)
JUDGE JUDGE


05.11.2026
Kamal Gandhi


Whether speaking Yes
Whether reportable Yes
KAMAL GANDHI
2026.11.11 11:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document