Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MR. NAVEEN DARYAL, versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mr. Naveen Daryal, v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-9655-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3507 (29 May 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 9655 of 2006

Date of Decision: 4.7.2006

Jagdeep Singh

...Petitioner

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. P.C. Chaudhary, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 as Guest Faculty Lecturer Hindi in Government Senior Secondary School, Kalri Jagir, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. In this regard reliance has been placed on the instructions dated 29.11.2005 (P-6) to show that the aforementioned instructions have not been followed. It is asserted that had those instructions been followed then the petitioner would have been selected and appointed as Guest Faculty Lecturer. The petitioner has asserted that his claim for appointment as Guest Faculty Lecturer is superior and he claims preference to respondent No. 5 by inviting our attention to clause 4(IV) of the instructions, which requires that priority for engaging guest faculty in a particular school should be accorded to a candidate of the same village/town. It is claimed that since the petitioner belonged to village Kalri Jagir, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, he is entitled to preference over and above respondent No. 5 who belongs to Village Nagla Rodhan, Tehsil and District Karnal.

We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and regret our inability to accept the same C.W.P. No. 9655 of 2006

because firstly there is no constitutional or legal right which may vest in the petitioner to claim appointment to be engaged as Guest Faulty Lecturer. Moreover the instructions dated 29.11.2005 (P-6) have not been shown to be statutory in character. Those instructions have not been issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, which may confer any right on the petitioner and corresponding obligation on the respondents. It is trite to observe that no mandamus can be issued in the absence of any legal right which might impose a corresponding legal obligation on the respondents. Therefore, no case is made out for interference of this Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

July 4, 2006

JUDGE

Pkapoor


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.