Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHIT SETHI AND ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohit Sethi and Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-5644-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3019 (9 May 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 5644of 2006

Date of decision 22 .5.2006

Mohit Sethi and ors .. 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. Girisih Agnihotri , Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana.

M.M.Kumar, J.

The prayer made in this petition is that the petitioners who have been appointed as Guest Faculty teachers upto 6.4.2006 be permitted to continue till the appointment of regular teachers is made. The respondents issued an advertisement inviting the application for the posts of Group "B" in various Government Polytechnics in the State of Haryana under the control of Technical Education Department. The candidates were to be appointed as Guest Faculty teachers and they were to be paid remuneration per lecture. They were expected to teach at least three lectures every day It is in these facts and circumstances that the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has to be considered. It could not be successfully disputed that the petitioners have been engaged as Guest Faculty teachers who are to be paid at the rate of per lecture.

Their selection has not been made in accordance with the rules governing the service condition of such teachers/ lectures nor they have been appointed by the District Education Officer or Director Public Instructions who under the rules are their appointing authority. It is evident from the perusal of criterion, procedure and remuneration that headmasters and principals have been authorised to engage the Guest Faculty teachers/ lecturers. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be considered to have any substantive right to the post for which they have been engaged for a specified period. If they have been relieved from their respective posts in accordance with the terms of the contract, no legal infirmity warranting interference with the action of the respondents could be found. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others JT 2006(4)SC 420 For the reasons afore mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(M.M.Kumar)

Judge

(M.M.S.Bedi )

22.5.2006 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.