Dismissed

Bal Kishan v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2010LPA/869/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed an appeal under Letters Patent challenging the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the appellant's appointment beyond the SC quota. The court dismissed the appeal by parity of reasoning with a prior judgment (Sohan Lal) and relied on Chiranji Lal limitations on hearing where the appellant was a party respondent in the original suit.

What did the court decide?

Office directed to add the prior order as part of this order and judgment dismissed accordingly.

Bal Kishan Vs State of Haryana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

LPA No. 869 of 2010 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: August 2, 2010

Bal Kishan

…Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶12

Present: Mr. Jangjit Singh Dahiya, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶16

This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 28.6.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing CWP No. 20503 of 2009 filed by the appellant along with another writ petition bearing CWP No. 18996 of 2009.

¶17

It is conceded position that order dated 28.6.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge has already been challenged before us in LPA No. 804 of 2010 (Sohan Lal v. State of Haryana and others). The said appeal came up for consideration on 22.7.2010 and we have dismissed the same by observing as under:-

¶18

“ Having heard learned counsel we are of the

¶19

LPA No. 869 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

considered view that the petitioner-appellant has many hurdles in his way to succeed. He has been found beyond quota meant for Schedule Castes category in the promotional post of Assistant Secretary. On the filing of the writ petition by Smt. Neelam Kanta and others where the appellant was party respondent, the petitionerappellant was given hearing and was then reverted. Thereafter the writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. The petitioner-appellant did not even disclose the factum of filing of the petition where he contested the matter as a party respondent. On this ground alone the petitioner-appellant has lost the right of hearing on merit of the controversy. In that regard reliance may be placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Chiranji Lal v. Financial Commissioner Haryana, (1978) 80 PLR 582 (F.B.) . There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal.

¶22

Therefore, for parity of reasoning, this appeal is also dismissed in terms of our judgment rendered in the case of Sohan Lal (supra). The office is directed to add a copy of the order dated 22.7.2010 rendered in the case of Sohan Lal (supra) and the same be read as part of this order.

¶23

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶24

(A.N. JINDAL) August 2, 2010 JUDGE

¶25

LPA No. 869 of 2010 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

Pkapoor

Bal Kishan v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Kishan 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

Seema Bains Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar & Ors. Vs P.G.I of Medical Edu. & Research, Chd. & Ors.

Shiv Kumar Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Jai Bhagwan

M.L.Bansal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Neelam Rani and Others Vs St of Hry etc.