Disposed

Prashant v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2024CWP/132/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A visually handicapped Assistant Professor (Mathematics) whose selection-based appointment was cancelled on revision of the Commission's final result challenged the termination for lack of hearing. Finding the termination order violated natural justice, the Court set it aside and directed a fresh reasoned decision after hearing him.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation orders set aside; Department to pass fresh order after hearing petitioner within three months, considering vacant posts.

Prashant Vs State of Haryana and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP No.132 of 2020 (O & M)

¶2

2024:PHHC:008364 �

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

221

¶6

¶7

CWP No.132 of 2020 (O & M) Date of Decision : 23.1.2024

Prashant

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶12

..... Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

¶14

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶15

Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana

¶16

Mr. Balwinder Sangwan, Advocate and Mr. Savreet Singh Brar, Advocate, for respondent no.2/HPSC

¶17

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):

¶18

The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 5.9.2019/2.12.2019, Annexure P-2, whereby the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Professor (College Cadre) Mathematics was cancelled.

¶19

Learned senior counsel contends that the respondent/Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) advertised various posts of Assistant Professor (College Cadre), including thirtythree posts of Assistant Professors, Mathematics, out of which one was reserved for General-Physically Handicapped (Visually Handicapped) category, to which the petitioner belonged. He was duly selected for the post and offered appointment vide letter dated 10.7.2019, and joined as such on the same date. Later, on account of revision of final result/merit,

¶20

Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.29 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP No.132 of 2020 (O & M)

¶22

2024:PHHC:008364 �

¶23

-2-

¶24

his appointment was cancelled vide impugned order dated 5.9.2019, without any show cause notice or providing any opportunity of hearing.

¶25

Learned senior counsel contends that the order of termination

¶26

could not have been passed without hearing the petitioner who was working on the post after due selection and appointment. The petitioner could have explained his position and sought appointment against vacant posts. He also contends that one hundred nine posts of Assistant Professor-Mathematics are still lying vacant. As per the policy of reservation, four per cent of these posts are reserved for the handicapped category, out of which one will fall to the category of General-Visually Handicapped. The petitioner can be considered for appointment against that vacant post, in terms of law laid down by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.7062 of 2003, titled Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others , decided on 1.7.2004.

¶27

Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends, since after correction of the final result of selection the Commission revised its earlier recommendation to appoint the petitioner against the reserved post on 21.8.2019, the Department had no option but to terminate his service and offer appointment to the selected candidate, the third respondent. He also submits that the petitioner was relieved from service pursuant to the impugned orders on 5.9.2019. It is, however, not disputed that the impugned order has been passed without hearing to him.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

Concededly, the order of termination has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, being in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice it is unsustainable, and

¶30

Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.29 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

2024:PHHC:008364 �

¶32

CWP No.132 of 2020 (O & M)

¶33

-3-

¶34

hereby set-aside granting liberty to the Department to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within three months of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶35

While passing the order afresh, the Department shall also take into account the posts presently lying vacant and consider whether the petitioner can be appointed against any of those.

¶36

Disposed of in above terms.

¶37

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of

¶38

accordingly.

¶39

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE

¶40

23.1.2024

¶41

Ashwani

¶42

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶43

Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.29 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Prashant v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Ramesh Singh Ahlawat Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ramesh Chand and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Renu Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Subash Chander Vs State of Haryana and Others

Govinda and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Santosh Verma Vs St of Hry & Ors.