Allowed

Sharmila and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2010CWP/21610/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding promotion. Relying on a Full Bench judgment, the Court directed respondents to consider petitioners' claims for promotion to DPE/PT Master by treating them as qualified if degrees are recognized, eliminating discrimination based on higher education in the same line.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioners' claim for promotion to DPE/PT Master treating them as qualified and eligible if degrees are recognized, with promotion effect from the date juniors we

Sharmila and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No.21610 of 2008 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: 19.2.2010

¶4

Sharmila & Anr. ...Petitioners

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Haryana & Others …Respondents

¶7

CORAM

¶8

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶9

PRESENT: Mr.GP Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr.RKS Brar, Addl.A.G., Haryana

¶11

Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)

¶12

Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage.

¶13

The petitioners were appointed as PTI in September 2004 vide Annexures P-1 and P-2. The grievance of the petitioners is that persons junior to them have been promoted to the post of DPE/PT Master as the petitioners are holding the three years degree course of B.P.E instead of one year degree course of D.P.Ed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from consideration for selection.

¶14

It is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the issue

¶15

CWP No.21610 of 2008 2

¶16

involved in this petition is no more res integra as having been settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.451 of 2008 alongwith connected matters wherein it has been observed as under:-

¶17

“....From the facts on record and dictum of above noticed judgments, it emerges that the candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from consideration for selection. It is a different matter that he/she may not be entitled to any additional weightage for higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification. Denying consideration to a candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line and discipline would definitely result in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The reference is answered accordingly.”

¶18

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of DPE (PT Master) treating them as qualified and eligible, if the degrees are otherwise recognized, in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court. In case the petitioners are found eligible on all counts, they be promoted with effect from the date persons junior to them have been promoted.

¶19

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶20

19.2.2010 MFK

Sharmila and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmila and Anr. v. State of Haryana 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

Himmat Singh Vs State of Haryana

Santi Saroop & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Randhir Singh Vs Deputy Registrar, Coop. Societies Rupnagar & Ors.

Sunita Rani Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurpal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kishori Lal and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.