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


Bhajan Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors - CRM-13540-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5933 (24 August 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


C.W.P.No.13540 of 2006

Date of decision:28.8. 2006

Bhajan Singh and others ..Petitioners


Union of India and others ..Respondents

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

Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D.Anand

Present: Mr. R.K.Gaur,Advocate

for the petitioner.


The petitioners were inducted as Bus Drivers on the recommendation of the Employment Exchange and Zila Sainik Board consequent upon having been screened by a Departmental Committee, on 89 days basis, in December, 1998. They claimed regularization in service. The instant claim was raised by the petitioners in the first instance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. The Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 24.5.2006, while accepting some of the prayers made by the petitioners, declined to require the respondents to regularize the petitioners in service. It is for the aforesaid reason, that the petitioners have approached this court, by impugning the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 24.5.2006, declining the plea of the petitioners wherein they claimed regularization in service.

On perusal of the determination at the hands of the Committee for the relief that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the process of regular selection consequent upon the issuance of an advertisement for appointment as Bus Drivers, all the petitioners participated in the selection process but could not make the grade. It is therefore, considered that others who have more meritorious than the petitioners were selected for appointment on regular basis.

We find no infirmity in the aforementioned determinatiion at the hands of the Administrative Tribunal after the Administrative Tribunal relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Versus Umadevi and others 2006(4) J.T.420. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not make any effort whatsoever to distinguish the aforesaid judgment. We are satisfied that the Tribunal was fully justified to decline the claim of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the decision rendered by the apex Court in Umadevi's case (supra).




August 28,2006 (S.D.ANAND)



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.