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


parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CWP-1981-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 247 (20 January 2006)

CWP No. 1981 of 2006 Page numbers

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

CWP No. 1981 of 2006

Date of decision: 9.2.2006

parveen Kumar



State of Haryana and others.


Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal

Present: Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate

for the petitioner.


J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The petitioner applied for appointment as a Maths Master in response to an advertisement issued in the 'Daily Tribune' dated 14.11.1999.

He was found meritorious enough in the written test conducted by the respondents so as to be invited for an interview. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that despite the fact that the name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.4 in the reserved category of Backward Class (A) candidates, the petitioner has not been favoured with an offer of appointment despite the fact, that a large number of vacancies CWP No. 1981 of 2006 Page numbers

out of the total of 667 posts advertised, are still available.

In order to substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.16967 of 2004 decided on 16.9.2005, wherein, a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners (in the said case) for appointment against the same posts as in the present case.

Having examined the matter in its totality, we are of the view, that it would not be fair at this juncture to require the respondents to fill up the vacancies in respect of which the selection process culminated in 2002 i.e. four years before the filing of the instant writ petition. In the interregnum, a large number of other candidates must have acquired eligibility for the same posts and have an equal right as the petitioner, to compete for the same.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )


(S.N. Aggarwal)





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.