ANIL KUMAR & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Anil Kumar & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-4053-2000 [2006] RD-P&H 3488 (29 May 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 4053 of 2000

Date of Decision: 4.7.2006

Anil Kumar 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. H.N. Khanduja, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, AG, Haryana, with

Mr. Jaswant Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana and Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

On 25.4.2000, a Division Bench of this Court had issued directions that the persons with higher qualification for the post of C&V Teachers, which included Hindi, Sanskrit, Punjabi, Art & Craft Teachers and P.T.Is, should be considered and if found suitable, they should also be appointed. It was further directed that in their appointment letters a condition be inserted that their appointments would be subject to the result of the petition. In the instant case, all the petitioners have appeared for interview in pursuance to the directions issued by the Division Bench. However, only one Ms. Ritu Kanwar, petitioner No. 5, could make the mark. She has been C.W.P. No. 4053 of 2000

selected and appointed whereas other petitioners have failed to make the grade. The aforementioned factual position has been conceded by the learned counsel for the parties. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, has placed on record a chart of number of cases including the details in respect of the present petition, which is taken on record as Mark-A in the connected petition bearing CWP No. 4161 of 2000.

Learned Advocate General has clarified that Ms. Ritu Kanwar, petitioner No. 5, has been considered on account of the fact that as per Appendix `B' to Rule 7 of the Haryana Primary Education (Group-C) District Cadre Service Rules, 1994, persons with higher qualification were to be considered only if candidates with JBT qualification were not available. Accordingly she has been considered on account of the fact that candidate with JBT qualification were not available.

In view of above, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and accordingly disposed of. However, it is made clear that Ms. Ritu Kanwar, petitioner No. 5, who has been selected and appointed, shall be entitled to all benefits.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

July 4, 2006

JUDGE

Pkapoor

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 |

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