Dismissed

Dal Bahadur v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Aug 2019CWP/755/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a driver whose services were dispensed due to vehicle non-availability, challenged the order claiming a right to future employment. The Court held that the petitioner has no claim for employment even if a vehicle is procured, as jobs must be filled via open competition, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with a direction not to implore respondents for employment despite potential vehicle purchase.

Dal Bahadur Vs State of Haryana and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CWP No.755 of 2019 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.755 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision:28.08.2019

Dal Bahadur

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

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

¶11

Mr. R.K.Doon, AAG, Haryana. Mr. S.P.Arora, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶13

C.M.No.9921 of 2019

¶14

The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Replication is taken on record.

¶15

CWP No.755 of 2019 (O&M)

¶16

Challenge in present writ petition is to the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure P-3), whereby, on account of non-availability of the vehicle having become condum, services of the petitioner working as a driver, have been dispensed with.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the year 1999, vide appointment letter dated 17.04.1999, (Annexure P-1), petitioner was appointed as a driver and after finding his

¶18

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.09.09 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.755 of 2019 (O&M) {2}

¶20

services to be satisfactory, his services were regularized vide order dated 27.10.2004 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner had been discharging the duties to the utmost satisfaction and dedication, without any demur or complaint, in other words, had impeccable record. No doubt, respondent no.3 has not purchased the vehicle but he can always be considered for appointment as and when any vehicle is purchased.

¶21

Per contra, Mr. S.P.Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 raised objection qua maintainability of writ petition as Government has to purchase the vehicles and therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per the provisions of Article 12 of Constitution of India. In such circumstances, remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere. As regards, purchase of vehicle, he submitted that there is no intention of purchasing the vehicle.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised paper book and of view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Chaudhary. An attempt has been made to bring the case within the realm of Article 226 of Constitution of India by referring to Annexures P-4 to P-6 where Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Bhartiya Grameen Mahila Samiti, Sirsa had issued appointment letters. Mr. Arora, Advocate has made an attempt to non-suit the petitioner on account of maintainability as the Deputy Commissioner has no role to play.

¶23

Keeping question of maintainability open, I am of the view that petitioner cannot implore on the respondents for employment, even if they intend to buy the vehicle which can always be through open competition as

¶24

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.09.09 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

CWP No.755 of 2019 (O&M) {3}

¶26

law of pre-emption would not apply in matters pertaining to service jurisprudence.

¶27

No ground is made out for interference.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 28, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶30

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.09.09 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Dal Bahadur v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dal Bahadur 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

Om Parkash Chahal Vs Ved Kumari and Anr.

Bijender Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohinder Pal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dr. Gagan Singla Vs State of Haryana and Others