Petitioner, a contract Computer Science Lecturer, seeks quashing of an advertisement replacing her. Court notes controversy settled in CWP No.3613 of 2011 and disposes of current petition accordingly.
Petition disposed in terms of decision in Sarjinder Singh and others case; respondents directed to consider claim in light thereof.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civl Writ Petition No.18077 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 26, 2011.
Gurdeepika Kaur ..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
Notice of motion.
Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.
In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage.
CWP No.18077 of 2011
[2]
The petitioner who is working as Computer Science Lecturer in the Education Department, Government of Punjab on purely contract basis, seeks quashing of the advertisement dated 19.6.2011 (Annexure P-5) whereby applications have been invited by respondent No.4 for fresh appointment of the Lecturers in Computer Science on contract basis by replacing the petitioner.
During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled by this Court vide judgment dated 30.8.2011 passed in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.3613 of 2011 (Sarjinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others) (Annexure P-9).
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the afore-stated decision of this Court in Sarjinder Singh and others' case (supra) and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of Sarjinder Singh and others' case (supra).
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
September 26, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for fresh appointment should be considered in light of the recent decision in Sarjinder Singh.
Whether the advertisement inviting fresh applications for contract-based lecturers should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarjinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and othersDistinguished¶21
Sarjinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others
CWP No.3613 of 2011Relied on¶20
Gurdeepika Kaur
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
