High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Navdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-14810-2006  RD-P&H 7785 (25 September 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP NO. 14810 of 2006
DATE OF DECISION: 29.9.2006
Navdeep Kaur ....Petitioner.
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND
PRESENT: Mr.C.L. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab,
for the respondents.
J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)
Learned counsel for the respondents states that the issue involved in the present controversy is purely legal and can be disposed of without the requirement of filing a formal written statement.
In view of the above, we have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to limit his claim to a direction in terms of the determination rendered by this Court in Bharat Talwar and others V. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.2696 of 2005 decided on 11.4.2005). Pointed attention of this Court in this behalf has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the following observations recorded by this Court in the aforesaid order:- " The first issue involved in this case is, whether or not the CWP NO. 14810 of 2006 2
petitioner should be allowed to continue as Lecturers (Guest Faculty) on part-time basis. Keeping in mind the order passed by the Supreme Court in Hargurpartap Singh's case (fully extracted above), we consider it just and appropriate to allow the respondents to dispense with the services of the petitioners, in case their services are no longer required. It will, however, not be open to the respondents to substitute the petitioners with others for the same purpose for which the petitioners have/had been engaged. As a mater of clarification, it may be stated that the nomenclature of the substitutes would be irrelevant, in other words engagement of employees as a matter of temporary arrangement (ad hoc stop-gap, current-duty, part-time, contractual, temporary etc.) so as to replace the petitioners, would not be permissible. In case the respondents desired to take work, in the same fashion as it is/was being taken from the petitioners, it wold be imperative for the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in their present assignments; or to re-induct them in case their services have already been dispensed with. This direction will, however, be subject to one over-riding condition, namely, that it would be open to the respondents to hold a regular process of selection by inviting applications from all eligible candidates i.e. by following the same procedure which the Education Department, Punjab, follows while making appointments against the posts of Lecturers in Government colleges. And in case such a process of selection is held, it would be open to the respondents to CWP NO. 14810 of 2006 3
make appointments therefrom based on the merits of candidates who had participated in the process of selection. The instant arrangement, has the approval of the rival parties." Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of with the directions contained in the observations, extracted hereinabove.
In view of the above, keeping in mind the limited prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction, that the respondents would be bound with the directions extracted hereinabove, from out of the decision rendered by this Court in Bharat Talwar's case (supra).
Disposed of accordingly.
( J.S. Khehar )
( S.D. Anand )
September 29, 2006. Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.