IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1173 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 05.11.2009 The State of Haryana and others. -----Appellants Vs. EHC Amrit Lal No.613/HSR. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana. for the appellants. --- ORDER: 1. The State has preferred this appeal against judgment of learned Single Judge, directing that the respondent be deputed to first Lower School Course, which is a procedure for promotion under the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Haryana. 2. Case of the respondent was that he was senior to original respondent No.5 being a 1988 appointee while original respondent No.5 was a 1992 appointee. Inspite of seniority of the writ petitioner, he was not given opportunity to be deputed to the Lower School Course when such opportunity was given to original respondent No.5. LPA No.1173 of 2009 3. The appellants defended this action on the basis of the criteria of giving such opportunity on the basis of a test to the extent of 55% of posts, which criteria was found to be contrary to the rules in the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No.7952 of 2004 Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & others decided on 5.11.2004, against which, SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Accordingly, learned Single Judge directed acceptance of claim of the respondent, following the judgment in Naresh Kumar (supra). 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the State is unable to dispute that the criteria which was laid down was set aside by this Court in Naresh Kumar (supra) and as per the said judgment, the respondent will be entitled to be considered on the basis of his seniority. 7. It is, however, argued that the respondent had also filed a civil suit which was a bar to entertaining of the writ petition. This contention cannot be accepted. Even though no person could take remedy in two Courts simultaneously and filing of a suit may be taken into account by the writ Court as a ground for not interfering, but the fact that the suit was filed, is not a jurisdictional bar to entertain the writ petition when action of the State had earlier been set aside by this Court. In its discretion, having regard to individual fact situation, particularly when matter 2 LPA No.1173 of 2009 is covered by earlier judgment on the same issue, writ Court may entertain a writ petition, allowing the petitioner to abandon the remedy of suit. 8. This being the position, no ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 05, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3