The court reiterated that writ petitions become infructuous if the core grievance ceases to exist during their pendency—for instance, when petitioners are already relieved from service. This judgment upholds existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, providing clear authority on disposal of infructuous petitions in employment matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/7877/2017 of SIDHARTH KHATTAR & ORS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS |
| CNR | PHHC011056082017 |
| Date of Registration | 18-04-2017 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Employment Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition seeking continuation of service is maintainable once the petitioners are relieved. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that where petitioners have already been relieved from service during pendency of the writ petition, no relief can be granted and the matter becomes infructuous. The fact of their relief was not rebutted by the petitioners’ counsel. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed as infructuous. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners sought a mandamus to restrain termination until regular appointments by due process. Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that petitioners had already been relieved in 2017, a fact not denied by petitioners’ counsel. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that courts will dismiss writ petitions as infructuous when petitioners’ status changes so that relief can no longer be granted (e.g., when petitioners are already relieved from service).
- The onus lies on the petitioner to rebut new facts which may render the petition infructuous; failure to do so leads to dismissal.
- When seeking interim protection in employment matters, lawyers should ensure the petition is not rendered academic by factual developments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The core relief sought was a writ mandamus against termination until regular recruitment.
- The respondent’s counsel submitted that petitioners had already been relieved from service during the pendency of the writ petition.
- The petitioners did not contest or rebut this assertion.
- The court held that since the relief sought could no longer be granted, the petition had become infructuous.
- Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as infructuous without entering into merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought a mandamus restraining the respondents from terminating their services until the appointment of regular candidates by due process.
Respondent No. 2
- Submitted that the petitioners had already been relieved in 2017, rendering the petition infructuous.
Petitioner (in reply)
- Did not rebut or contest the fact that they had already been relieved.
Factual Background
The petitioners filed a writ seeking an order directing the respondents not to terminate their services until the posts are filled regularly through due process. During the pendency of proceedings, the petitioners were relieved from service in the year 2017. This fact was brought to the court’s attention and not contested by petitioners’ counsel, resulting in disposal of the petition as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment references the court’s writ jurisdiction for issuing mandamus, but does not engage in detailed statutory interpretation, as the matter was disposed for being infructuous due to factual developments.
Procedural Innovations
None noted; the court followed standard procedure for disposing infructuous petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies the settled principle that a court will not grant relief where the factual foundation of the petition ceases to exist, disposing such petitions as infructuous.