Dismissed

Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jul 2011CWP/6708/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment as a Forester on compassionate grounds. The court distinguished a cited precedent, noting the petitioner held low educational qualifications and was already given a vacant post of Forest Guard, which was deemed commensurate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction issued for appointment.

Raghubir Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 6708 of 1993 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 6708 of 1993 Date of decision:- 04.07.2011

Raghubir Singh

....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶10

Present:Ms. Heena Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Goel, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

¶11

¶12

A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the order Annexure P-8, whereby he was refused to be appointed as Forester at the time when he was offered appointment on compassionate grounds. Petitioner has further sought issuance of direction to the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of Forester.

¶14

The petitioner was appointed to the post of Forest Guard by the respondents, which was existing at the relevant time when his application for appointment on compassionate grounds was considered. It has been specifically stated that no post of Forester was available at that time.

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No. 6708 of 1993 2

¶16

At the same time, the petitioner could not seek priority over any post, but he could raise a claim over the post commensurating his status. He was a matriculate and was eligible for the post of Forest Guard, which was existing at that time and he was given that benefit.

¶17

The petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed in Sukhwinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 262 of1993, decided on 08.11.1993 (Annexure A-1), wherein it was observed as under:-

¶18

“.....When on compassionate grounds one member of the family of th deceased is to be adjusted in the government job, such a post as commensurate with his educational qualifications, is to be offered. The petitioner is a B.A.M.S. and cannot be appointed as a Dispenser. No rule has been pointed out that a post below in rank commensurate with the educational qualifications possessed is to be offered.”

¶19

The facts of the aforesaid case are quite distinctive. In this case, the petitioner was merely a matriculate and was eligible to the post of a Forest Guard. Thus, as per his eligibility, he could well be awarded the post of Forest Guard, which he was given, particularly when at that time no vacancy for the post of Forester was available. Furthermore, it appears that he must have been now promoted.

¶20

No grounds to interfere.

¶21

Dismissed.

¶22

04^th of July, 2011 ajp

¶23

(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE

Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

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

Jaimal Singh Vs Pb.State K.S.Sidhu

Babli Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Surinder Singh Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Rohtak & Anr.

Niranjan Singh Vs Director Rural Development Pb.

Hazara Singh Vs Collector ,Patiala and Another

Mehar Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.