Disposed

Madan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2010CWP/20760/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ mandamus directing the State to hold a promotion committee meeting for 25% quota of Group Instructors, excluding candidates with unauthorised diplomas. The Court held the petition premature as respondents were still screening candidates and assured them to follow existing court directions restricting promotion of those with unauthorised qualifications.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; no writ issued; Court trusts respondents will follow directions to exclude candidates from unauthorised institutions from promotion.

Madan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.20760 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 22, 2010

Madan Singh & others

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

. . .

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

PRESENT: - Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

. . .

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

¶13

This civil writ petition has been

¶14

filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-State and Director, Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, to

¶15

hold Departmental Promotional Committee’s meeting for promotion to the post of Group Instructor(s) in the 25% quota for Diploma holders while considering the eligible candidates only.

¶16

CWP No.20760 of 2010 [2]

¶17

Notice of motion.

¶18

On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General,

¶19

Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Requisite number of copies of

¶20

the petition have been given to learned counsel for the respondents.

¶21

On the request of learned counsel

¶22

for the parties and in view of the nature of controversy, the matter is being taken up

¶23

today itself for final adjudication.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

petitioners contends that the petitioners

¶26

joined the service in State of Punjab, Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training as Craft Instructors, and

¶27

have served for more than 5 years. The petitioners are eligible for promotion as

¶28

Group Instructors under the Punjab Industrial Training (Group B) Technical Service Rules, 2006.

¶29

While drawing attention of the

¶30

Court towards the unamended service rules, learned counsel states that the posts were to be filled by way of promotion to the post of

¶31

CWP No.20760 of 2010 [3]

¶32

Group Instructor from amongst Craft Instructors to the extent of 75% of the posts and 25% by direct recruitment. Due to the availability of qualified Diploma holders with the Department, the rules were amended and a separate feeder cadre was provided for promotion to the post of Group Instructors. 25% of the posts were separately earmarked for promotion from amongst Craft Instructors who were Diploma holders in Engineering.

¶33

Learned counsel contends that it

¶34

was noticed that persons who had obtained Diploma from unauthorised institutions were being promoted. The matter was brought before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2858 of 2008 titled ‘ Sunil Kumar Soni vs. State of

¶35

Punjab & others ’. The petition is pending adjudication. Vide interim order dated 27.2.2008, the following direction has been

¶36

issued:-

¶37

“Counsel for the petitioner says that in identical matter in Civil Writ Petition No. 1640 of 2008, this Court has issued notice of motion and the same is coming up for hearing on 14.05.2008.

¶38

Let notice of motion issue to the respondents, returnable on 14.05.2008.

¶39

Re-notify for hearing on 14.05.2008 alongwith CWP No.1640 of 2008.

¶40

In the meanwhile we direct respondents no.1 and 2 not to promote the candidates who have obtained the degrees

¶41

CWP No.20760 of 2010 [4]

¶42

from unauthorized institutions.”

¶43

Learned counsel has pointed out that in deference to directions of this Court, vide Order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P-4), directions were issued to the Heads of Departments to ensure meticulous compliance of directions of this Court.

¶44

Learned counsel for the

¶45

petitioners states that dehors the directions of this Court, the respondents appear to be in a hurry to fill the posts by way of empanelling 28 persons for promotion to the post of Group Instructors, although the such persons who do not hold Diploma from authorised institutions.

¶46

Learned counsel for the

¶47

respondent-State contends that directions of this Court would be followed in letter and spirit.

¶48

Having considered the issue, I am

¶49

of the opinion that the petition appears to

¶50

be premature. This Court had directed the respondents not to promote the candidates who have obtained degrees from unauthorised institutions. The respondents, at this point

¶51

CWP No.20760 of 2010 [5]

¶52

in time, have been shown to be only considering various persons in the cadre for promotion. This Court trusts that after consideration, persons who do not hold Degrees/ Diploma from authorised

¶53

institutions, would not be promoted, and directions issued by this Court and resultant instructions (Annexure P-4) issued by the respondents would be followed in their letter and spirit.

¶54

The petition is accordingly

¶55

disposed of.

¶56

Copy of the order be given under

¶57

signatures of the Reader of the Bench.

¶58

(AJAI LAMBA)

¶59

November 22, 2010 JUDGE

¶60

avin

¶61

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶62

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Madan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanpat & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Chanan Singh @ Channa Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mohit Rishi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mast Ram Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Roshan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.