Allowed

Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2012CWP/10559/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed petitioner's prayer for early disposal of writ petition by following a similar judgment. Petitioner directed to be appointed from date candidate lower in merit was appointed, without financial benefits for absence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be appointed from date lower merit candidate appointed; no financial benefits for period out of service; entitled to other consequential benefits.

Surender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.M.No.15467 of 2011 in C.W.P.No.10559 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 05.07.2012

Surender Singh

....Petitioner(s)

vs.

The State of Haryana and others

¶7

....Respondent(s)

¶8

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

¶11

Present:Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

¶15

C.M.No.15467 of 2011

¶16

Prayer in this application is for fixing an early actual date for disposal of the writ petition on the ground that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the order passed by this Court.

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Main writ petition is taken up on board for disposal as the counsel for the respondents does not oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

Main Case.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner contends that a similarly placed candidate, namely, Ashok Kumar, who was also involved in a criminal case but subsequent to the submission of the application for the post in the same

¶20

C.W.P.No.10559 of 2005

¶21

-2-

¶22

selection process had filed CWP No.16827 of 2004 titled as Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 8.2.2012. He contends that the present case is covered on all fours by the said judgment and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶23

Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in Ashok Kumar's case (supra).

¶25

Petitioner is directed to be appointed from the date the candidate lower in merit to him was appointed. He shall, however, be not entitled to the financial benefits for the period he remained out of service but shall be entitled to all other consequential benefits.

¶26

July 05, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE

Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Singh 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

Gurpal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ranjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Monika Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kewal Krishan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kulbhushan Kohli Vs State of Haryana and Ors.