High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
State of Punjab v. Vinay Kumar - RSA-1577-2005  RD-P&H 623 (7 February 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.1577 of 2005
Date of Decision : February 17, 2006.
State of Punjab .... Appellant
Vinay Kumar .... Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.H.S.Shergill, AAG, Punjab,
for the appellant.
Mr.Shailendra Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
The defendant-State of Punjab has concurrently lost before the two courts below, in a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff claiming that he was a regular and permanent Social Studies Master of the Department of Education with effect from September 17, 1994 till the date of his initial appointment.
The facts which emerge from the record show that in pursuance of an advertisement for appointment of Social Studies teachers, the plaintiff had applied and was called for interview on December 17, 1992. He was issued Roll Number 2225. He was selected. However, while appointing the plaintiff as Social Studies Master, he was allotted Roll No.2125. The plaintiff continued to work for a period of five years. Subsequently, the appointment of the plaintiff along with some other teachers was quashed by this Court being in excess of the vacancies advertised. Thereafter, the plaintiff made inquiries and came to know that his actual roll number was 2225 and therefore, he should have been appointed on the aforesaid roll number, which was within the posts advertised. The plaintiff, however, was later on appointed on the adhoc appointment with effect from the year 1997.
R.S.A.No.1577 of 2005 : 2 :
The plaintiff claimed that because of the mistake made by the department, the plaintiff was entitled to be treated as regular employee of the department with effect from September, 1994 itself.
Both the courts below have accepted the facts which have been pleaded by the plaintiff and even have been proved by the plaintiff by leading evidence. It was noticed that there was an error when the plaintiff was appointed against a wrong roll number. However, he continued to work after his appointment for a long period and did not notice the wrong roll number mentioned in his appointment letter.
Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by the defendant failed before the learned first appellate court.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 17, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.