SURESH PAL & ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Suresh Pal & Anr v. State of Haryana & Ors. - RA-255-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 8637 (16 October 2006)

RA 255 of 2005 in 1

CWP 2524 of 1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.A 255 of 2005 in

CWP No. 2524 of 1999

DATE OF DECISION : 26.10.2006

Suresh Pal and another

......PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others.

......RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. JS Dahiya, Advocate for applicant-petitioners.

M.M.KUMAR,J.

Order dated 2.11.2000 passed by the Division Bench of this Court disposing of a bunch of petitions including CWP No.2524 of 1999 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant application. According to the concluding para of the judgment of the Division Bench, the writ petitions were dismissed rejecting the claim of the petitioners for quashing the action of the non-applicant respondents relieving them from their post of J.B.T.

Teacher on the joining of regularly selected candidates. The selection made by the Commission and the appointments made pursuant thereto were upheld. The question with regard to payment of salary in regular time scale prescribed for the post was left open depending on the decision of SLPs filed by the State against the judgment passed by this Court in Polu Ram RA 255 of 2005 in 2

CWP 2524 of 1999

vs. State of Haryana 1998(4) RSJ 152.

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, we find that no case for review is made out. The contention that the applicant-petitioner No.17 should be granted the same relief as has been granted by another Division Bench in CWP No.11604 of 1999 decided on 2.9.2002 is liable to be rejected because it cannot constitute a ground for review of earlier order merely because the latter Division Bench has taken another view. The remedy of the applicant-petitioner lies elsewhere, therefore, the review application fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

( M.M.KUMAR )

JUDGE

October 26 ,2006 ( M.M.S.BEDI )

TSM 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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.