Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SALOCHNA AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Salochna and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. - CWP-7596-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 9709 (2 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No.7596 of 2006

Date of Decision:9.11.2006

Salochna and Anr.

....Petitioners.

Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.

...Respondents.

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.Bedi.

Present:- Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana

for the respondents.

****

M.M.KUMAR, J.(ORAL)

Learned counsel for the petitioners has apprised us that on the last date of hearing he has mistakenly requested that no reply has been filed and accordingly an order was passed on 31.8.2006 observing that the reply be filed a week before the adjourned date with a copy in advance to the petitioners whereas in the instant petition notice of motion has not been issued. Accordingly that order is reviewed and the petition has been heard for motion.

The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to appoint them on the posts of lecturer in economics. It is admitted position that the names of the petitioners have been kept in waiting list and in the speaking order dated 25.1.2006( Annexure P-13) passed by the Commissioner and Director General School Education,Haryana, Chandigarh, (respondent No.2) it has been clarified that the petitioners were in the waiting list at merit No.1 and

4. The petitioner could make claim only against the posts which remain unfilled on account of non joining of the candidates from the merit list. It has further been asserted that all the posts have been filled up from the main list.

Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has argued that there are nine posts lying vacant and in that regard he has made averments in para 8 of the petition. There is no supporting document to belie the assertion made by respondent No.2 in the speaking order dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P13). Therefore, we deem it just and appropriate to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of seeking information from the Commissioner and Director General School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, with regard to the fact whether nine posts of the Lecturer in economics are lying vacant and have not been filled up in pursuant to the advertisement issued on 14.11.1999 (Annexure P1).

The instant petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(M.M.KUMAR)

JUDGE

Nov 9, 2006. (M.M.S.BEDI)

Reema. JUDGE


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.