Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dr. Dharam Pal v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CWP-1975-2000 [2006] RD-P&H 10377 (13 November 2006)

CWP No.1975 of 2000 -: 1 :-


CWP No.1975 of 2000 (O&M)

Date of decision: November 03, 2006.

Dr. Dharam Pal



State of Punjab & Ors.


Present: Shri V.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

In this writ petition, originally, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote him to the post of Professor of Ayurveda against the promotional quota vacancy with all consequential beneifts.

The petitioner, who started his career as a Vaidya on 10.6.1974, was later on appointed to the posts of Demonstrator, Senior Lecturer/Asstt.

Professor. He was thereafter appointed as Professor Swasthvrit on ad hoc basis allegedly against a direct quota post vide Govt. of Punjab order dated 19/24 August, 1998 (Annexure P-4).

There is no denial to the fact that since then the petitioner is working as Professor, though on ad hoc basis.

During the pendency of this writ petition, Dr. Bal Krishan CWP No.1975 of 2000 -: 2 :-

Kaushik, who is stated to be junior to the petitioner and who too was working as a Professor on ad hoc basis in the Department of Dravyaguna filed CWP No.323 of 2006 which was disposed of by this Court on January 10, 2006 with a direction "to take a conscious decision upon the representation dated 1.9.2005" which Dr. Kaushik had made to the authorities, "within a period of two months". It is not disputed that in the said representation, Dr. Kaushik has averred that persons junior to him had already been promoted as Professor on regular basis and since he was working as Professor (Dravyaguna) on ad hoc basis from last 7 years, he was entitled to be made regular on the said post.

There is also no denial to the fact that in compliance to the directions dated January 10, 2006 issued by this Court in Dr. Bal Krishan Kaushik's case (supra), the Govt. of punjab has passed an order dated 17.10.2006 whereby Dr. Kaushik has been promoted as Professor on regular basis with effect from 23.6.2003, i.e., the date when his junior was promoted to the post of Professor.

The petitioner has now moved C.M. No.17831 of 2006 in which, relying upon the above stated Govt. order dated 17.10.2006 (appended as Annexure MA-1), he seeks a somewhat similar direction to the State of Punjab, inter-alia, on the grounds that:- (i) the petitioner is working as a Professor on ad hoc basis since 24.8.1998; (ii) he is fully eligible for the aforesaid post; (iii) his work and conduct, while working on ad hoc basis, has remained to the entire satisfaction of the authorities; (iv) his junior, namely, Dr. Bal Krishan Kaushik and prior thereto, his several other juniors have already been made regular as Professors.

Though the petitioner's claim, as contained in the original writ CWP No.1975 of 2000 -: 3 :-

petition, which is primarily founded upon deficiency in promotion quota, is being contested by the official respondents, however, Shri Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, does not dispute the subsequent events noticed above, particularly the directions dated 10.1.2006 issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Bal Krishan Kaushik and consequential order dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure MA-1) passed by the Govt. of Punjab whereby said Dr. Kaushik has been promoted as Professor regularly and retrospectively.

In this view of the matter, more so when the petitioner is stated to be due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2007, the Civil Misc. application as well as the main case, both are disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to treat the writ petition as well as the averments made in the Misc. application as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and consider and decide the petitioner's claim objectively on the same analogy as has been followed in the case of Dr. Bal Krishan Kaushik and pass appropriate orders on or before 30.11.2006.

Disposed of.

A compliance report shall be placed on record.

Let a copy of the order be supplied to Shri Cheema, Learned State Counsel, dasti for information and necessary compliance.

November 03, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.