Dismissed

Bhartari v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2012CWP/10658/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a rejection of his claim for reservation in guest teacher appointments, contending state instructions mandated such compliance. The court held guest teacher posts were stopgap arrangements appointed under specific government instructions lacking reservation rights, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying for quashing of the rejection order and appointment under reservation policy is dismissed.

Bhartari Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CWP No. 10658 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 10658 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision : May 01, 2012

Bhartari

PETITIONER

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶10

..... RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

Present : Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 28.01.2009 (Annexure P-4), vide which the claim of the petitioner for applying the policy of reservation while appointing Guest Teachers, stands rejected.

¶15

Petitioner contends that he belongs to the scheduled caste category. Guest Teachers were to be appointed in the Political Science subject by the District Education Officer, Jhajjar. He applied for the said post as he was eligible. Five Guest Teachers were appointed vide order dated 28.07.2008 but the petitioner was not selected or appointed. He contends that while filling up these five posts, the instructions for reservation, as provided by the State of Haryana, dated 05.04.1977, have not been complied with.

¶16

CWP No. 10658 of 2011

¶17

¶18

Accordingly, he made a representation to the District Education Officer, which has been rejected vide order dated 28.01.2009 (Annexure P-4). It is this order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the instructions issued by the State of Haryana are binding on the process of selection for any post irrespective of the nature of appointment. He, therefore, contends that non-applying the instructions with regard to the reservation violate the instructions itself and the petitioner being the only eligible Guest Teacher, who belongs to the scheduled caste category and had applied, should have been appointed.

¶20

This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the Guest Teachers were appointed under specific instructions of the Government. There is nothing provided under those instructions, which deal with reservation or confer the right on a person who belongs to a particular category. In any case, it is a stopgap arrangement, on which a person cannot claim it as a matter of right especially when the instructions, under which the appointments are being made, have not been violated by the respondents.

¶21

Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.

¶22

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) May 01, 2012 JUDGE pj

¶23

CWP No. 10658 of 2011 3

Bhartari v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhartari 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

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Geeta Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Karam Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Tara Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mahender Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.