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


Stayapal & Anr v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-10772-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4236 (17 July 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 10772 of 2006

Date of Decision: 20.7.2006

Stayapal and another



State of Haryana and others



PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate,

for the petitioners.


M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

The prayer made in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing action of the respondents in limiting the appointments of the petitioners for a limited period as per advertisement dated 17.12.2005 (P-1). A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue working against their respective posts as Guest Instructors/Language Teachers unless the same are filled up by regularly selected candidates as also to grant the petitioners regular pay scales of the posts on the principle of `equal pay for equal work' instead of paying them on hour basis as they are discharging same functions and duties with same responsibilities as are performed by their counter parts.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on letter dated 29.11.2005 (P-2) as well as on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Balraj Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 2743 of 2006, decided on 20.3.2006) wherein while C.W.P. No. 10772 of 2006

disposing of the aforementioned writ petition Division Bench had directed that till such time the selection process of regular recruitment is completed, the guest faculty shall remain in place. However, the Division Bench rejected the prayer of the petitioners of the aforementioned case to grant emoluments equal to the minimum wages being paid to the regular teaching faculty.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that there is no merit in the present petition.

Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed in pursuance to the policy of the respondents, dated November 29, 2005, which cannot be traced to any statutory provisions. The aforementioned policy can also not be construed to be instructions issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Balraj Singh (supra) would be of no help in seeking same relief as granted in the aforementioned case, inasmuch as, the said case was decided on March 20, 2006 and thereafter law on the subject has changed in view of the latest Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v.

Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Therefore, such like directions cannot be issued any more. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter as no legal rights have been conferred upon the petitioners.

For the reasons aforementioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed.




July 20, 2006 JUDGE



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.