Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH CHAND & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramesh Chand & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-12181-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 2610 (25 April 2006)

CWP 12181 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 12181 of 2005

Date of decision 5.5.2006

Ramesh Chand and others .. petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr.Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana

M.M.Kumar, J.

This petition prays for quashing the result of the post of lecturer in Sanskrit as published in the English Daily Hindustan Times dated 9.10.2005 ( Annexure P.5) on the ground that it has been declared after a gap of almost five years. It is claimed that the right of all those candidates like the petitioners who have become eligible for these posts during the period of five years have been defeated. A similar prayer was made in CWP No. 17328 of 2004 and on 5.8.2005, the hearing of the instant petition was adjourned to be heard alongwith CWP No.17328 of 2004. The later petition came up for hearing on 11.1.2006 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. However, this petition was adjourned for motion hearing.

After hearing the learned counsel, we find that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hassan Mohd. v. State of Haryana 2003(4) SLR 1 which also resulted from an advertisement issued on 14.11.1999 have considered the matter at CWP 12181 of 2005 2

length and has issued the following directions to the respondent-State: " (A). The State of Haryana will frame a rational policy within six months for regularisation of adhoc employees laying down parameters about length of service, elgiibility for regularisation and treatment to be given to the past service. The said policy will include at least those employees who have rendered five years of service as on 31.3.2003.

(B). The State will be free to take appropriate decision about the appointment of 109 persons regularly selected and adjust them either against existing vacancies or otherwise subject to direction A.

( C). Finalise number of vacancies that still be available after working out the scheme as may be framed as per direction A and make regular selection on the said posts in accordance with law." In pursuance to the afore-mentioned directions a policy of regularisation was framed by the State Government on 1.10.2003 whereby number of adhoc/ contract teachers were regularised.

According to the written statement filed in CWP No.17328 of 2004 it has been pointed out that after regularisaiton of services of adhoc/ contractual employees 1302 posts of SS Masters remained vacant. Out of which 32 posts were meant for physically handicapped persons. Accordingly a requisition was sent to the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Commission to send their recommendations against 1270 posts and on receipt of the recommendations, respondent no.2 issued appointment letters.

The afore-mentioned course claims to have been adopted in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench wherein it is observed that after framing the policy for CWP 12181 of 2005 3

regularisation and regularising eligible persons thereunder, the number of vacancies still available thereafter, be filled by regular selection. Accordingly recommendations in respect of 1270 vacancies were requisitioned. Therefore, the matter appears to bealready covered by the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court. It is further appropriate to mention that all the selected persons who have been appointed have also not been impleaded as party respondents. Therefore, we find that no interference of this Court would be warranted and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(M.M.Kumar)

Judge

(M.M.S.Bedi )

5. 5.2006 Judge okg


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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