HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18147 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.09.2011 **** SPO Bola Singh & Anr. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. AK Saini, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply(ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage. (2). The petitioners have been employed as SPOs by the Punjab Police and are working as such for years. Their grievance is that the respondents have not enrolled them as Constables on the plea that the petitioners do not fulfill the prescribed physical standards. The petitioners, on the other hand, rely upon certain instances of relaxation in CWP No.18147 of 2011.doc - 2 - physical standards and further claimed to have improved their academic qualifications. (3). Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Officers’ Committee constituted by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2010 passed in CWP No.566 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and others to look into the grievances of the Police personnel (s), with compassion and sympathy, especially in the light of the contentions noticed above. (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). The Officers’ Committee shall consider the petitioners’ claim within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to them. Needless to say that if the Committee makes favourable recommendations, the competent authority is directed to implement those recommendations unless it disagrees for the reasons to be assigned in writing. (6). Dasti . 26.09.2011 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) Judge