Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAHLAD versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRAHLAD v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors. - CWP-1036-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 55 (9 January 2006)

CWP No. 1036 of 2006 Page numbers

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh..

CWP No. 1036 of 2006

Date of decision: 23.1.2006

Prahlad

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others.

....Respondent

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal

Present: Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate

for the petitioner.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is, that he is eligible for appointment to the post of conductor, and was liable to be considered for appointment against the post of conductor when the process of selection for the same was held in March, 2004. The pointed grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that at the time when CWP No. 1036 of 2006 Page numbers

interviews were held on 30.3.2004, the petitioner was not invited for an interview.

It would be pertinent to mention, that the pleadings of the instant case reveal, that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition with the same grievance. On the earlier occasion, this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to take a final decision on the issue. The respondents by an order dated 21.5.2005, rejected the claim raised by the petitioner by adopting the stance, that the petitioner himself was remiss, inasmuch as, he did not participate in the process of selection. Accordingly, a communication dated 21.5.2005 is stated to have been addressed to the petitioner, informing him of the aforesaid factual position and also recording, that the petitioner had not raised any issue in this behalf when the process of selection was being conducted.

After the disposal of the claim of the petitioner by an order dated 21.5.2005, the petitioner claims to have addressed yet another representation dated 20.6.2005 on the same issue before a still higher authority. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the higher authority should be required to take a final decision on the CWP No. 1036 of 2006 Page numbers

representation (dated 20.6.2005) now moved by the petitioner.

It is not possible for us to accept the instant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The issue raised by the petitioner came to be finally adjudicated upon by the respondents through the order dated 21.5.2005. The petitioner will be deemed to have not contested the factual position depicted therein on account of the fact, that the order dated 21.5.2005 has not been impugned by the petitioner.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the claim raised by the petitioner.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge.

(S.N. Aggarwal)

Judge.

23.01.2006

sk.


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.