Disposed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jul 2011CWP/10280/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus for appointment as Teaching Fellows based on a 2007 selection list for posts not filled after a fresh 2011 advertisement. The court refused to strike down the fresh ad but directed authorities to consider the petitioners' claim for appointment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition for mandamus to interfere with fresh advertisement dismissed; direction issued to consider petitioners' appointment claim within three months.

Jaspinder Singh and Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civl Writ Petition No.10280 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 12, 2011.

¶3

Jaspinder Singh and others ..... Petitioners versus

¶4

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶6

Present : Mr.Ashish Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶7

-.-

¶8

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶12

The petitioners seek a mandamus for their appointment as Teaching Fellows on the basis of the selection process held pursuant to the Advertisement No.2 issued in September, 2007.

¶13

It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the respondent-authorities have been making appointments out of the selection list till May, 2010. However, the subsequent vacancies or the unfilled posts to the tune of 7041 have now been advertised vide advertisement dated 26.4.2011. Out of these, 516 posts are meant for District Tarn-Taran to which the petitioners belong. The petitioners' contention is that instead of filling these posts afresh, they should be given appointments pursuant to

¶14

CWP No.10280 of 2011 [2]

¶15

the previous selection process of 2007.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any ground to interfere with the fresh advertisement. However, if the competent authority is of the view that the previous selection list is still operative or the petitioners, as per their merit position, can be given appointment, it shall be at liberty to consider their claim as contained in the representation dated 4.2.2011 (Annexure P-5) which may be considered and disposed of as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶17

Ordered accordingly. Dasti. July 12, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspinder 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Singh Kalsi Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

R.S.Virk Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Parveen Kumar Gandhi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Sharda Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

S.K.Singla Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Raghbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.