Disposed

Neeta v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2011CWP/10736/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a writ petition filed by a teacher whose services were terminated due to an alleged improper subject combination. The court noted the petitioner had later qualified for the subject and advised her to file a representation for reconsideration instead of continuing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the petitioner advised to file a representation for reconsideration of her case.

Neeta Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 10736 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.07.2011

Neeta

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr. Rakesh K. Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State.

¶11

RANJIT SINGH J.

¶12

In the year 2006, the petitioner had applied for the post of Guest Faculty Teacher at Government Senior Secondary School, Dhangar as Science teacher as well as of Maths teacher at Government High School, Aherwan, Block Ratia, District Fatehabad. The petitioner joined as a Guest Faculty Teacher at Dhangar. In April 2010, the petitioner was apprised that his combination of subject was not proper. She immediately made an application for appearing and passing Chemistry subject as an additional subject from Kurukshetra University. The petitioner's services were, however, terminated and she has, thus, filed this writ petition.

¶13

As per the counsel for the petitioner, once the petitioner had applied for both the posts of Science teacher as well as Maths teacher, if his combination of subject was not proper for continuing as a Science teacher, the respondents could have considered the case of the petitioner for adjusting as Maths teacher. In addition, the

¶14

Civil Writ Petition No. 10736 of 2010

¶15

-2-

¶16

counsel also submits that she has now qualified the additional subject and is, thus, fully eligible for being appointed and continuing as Science Teacher as well. Since the services of the petitioner have already been terminated, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority for considering/ reconsidering her case for appointment/re-appointment either as Science teacher or as Maths teacher as the petitioner would like to apply. In case, there is any vacancy, the respondents would consider the case of the petitioner with sympathy as she had already worked and her presence may be useful to the school.

¶17

The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶18

July 22, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE

Neeta v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karam Singh & Ors. Vs Joint Director Panchayt Cum Comm. Pb & Anr.

Om Parkash and Anr. Vs State of Pb.and Ors.

Navneet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Financial Commisioner and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.