Disposed

Harjeet Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jul 2012CWP/14171/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP filed by teachers alleging arbitrary denial of promotion and violation of Articles 14 and 16 due to lower seniority. Court directed authorities to consider the claim and decide the legal notice within three months without adjudicating the merit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to consider the petitioners' claim and decide the legal notice within three months.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.14171 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.14171 of 2012 Date of decision:27.07.2012

¶5

Harjeet Kaur & others

¶6

......Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶11

Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner, who are holding the post of S.S.

¶15

Masters/Mistresses under the Department of Education, State of Punjab are aggrieved of the action of the respondent/authorities in having promoted the private respondents to the higher post of Lecturer (Political Science) in terms of order dated 16.05.2012 (Annexure P-4). It is not a matter of dispute that under the statutory service rules governing the service, it is the order of merit determined by the Recruiting Agency that shall govern seniority as regards the members of the cadre, who were appointed by way of direct recruitment. Learned counsel appearing the for the petitioners has referred to the averments made in para No.9 of the petition to contend that the names of the petitioners were reflected in the seniority at Sr. Nos.3142, 2178, 2205, 2495, respectively, whereas, the names of private respondents are junior. It has also been contended that the petitioners had been appointed as S.S. Masters/Mistresses in pursuance to a selection process conducted in December, 1996, whereas, the private respondents came to be appointed in

¶16

-2-

¶17

CWP No.14171 of 2012

¶18

pursuance to a later selection process conducted in June, 1997. Accordingly, it is submitted that the action of the respondent/authorities in denying the petitioners for consideration for purposes of promotion to the higher posts is, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Learned counsel further submits that even a legal notice dated 19.05.2012 (Annexure P-5) towards redressal of their grievance has already been served upon the respondent/authorities.

¶20

In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and without making any observations as regards the merit of the claim of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondent/authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners and decide the legal notice dated 19.05.2012 (Annexure P- 5) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶21

Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶22

July 27, 2012 harjeet

¶23

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

Harjeet Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjeet Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Subhash Chand etc. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sanjay Seth Vs Chd. Housing Board, Chd

Virender Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jora Singh Gill Vs Secretary to the Govt. of Punjab & Ors.

Dharam Vir Vs Husan Lal and Anr.

Jagjot Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.