Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Dutt Kaushik vs . State Of Haryana & Others on 26 November, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.19937 of 2009
Surinder Dutt Kaushik Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr.Hari Om Attri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner, who is Lecturer in Economics in Government Senior Secondary School, Village Neuoli Kalan, District Hisar, has approached this court through the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case for posting against a vacant post of District Scout and Guide Organizer in the office of District Education Officer, Hisar. The petitioner has made a claim for choice of the preferential posting on the basis of a policy formulated by the Government for State Awardee of excellent service in the Education Department. Petitioner claims to be the only Awardee in the subject of Economics and in this regard would refer to Annexure P-1.
Respondents have invited applications for choice of posting on 11.1.2006 from those Lecturers, who were decorated with the State Awards. The petitioner accordingly submitted his application through proper channel on 4.1.2007. He submitted another application on 21.5.2007 and finally submitted yet another application on 8.5.2008. Having waited for 1-1/2 years and when posting was not given to him, though the post was lying vacant, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
In the reply filed, it is stated that no sanctioned post of District Scout and Guide Organizer in the Department of Government Civil Writ Petition No.19937 of 2009 :2: is available. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner is not genuine and the petitioner has no right.
Mr.Rathee also points out that the petitioner was not considered eligible as a criminal case was pending against him. Thus, the prayer is made for dismissing the writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner has now given other choices also as can be made out from his application (Annexure P-3).
Prayer made in the year 2007 for posting is still pending consideration. There was hardly any need to pend this petition for nearly one year. It is for the State to consider if the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of policy. Courts normally do not have role in asking the State to implement policies.
The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for preferential posting in terms of the policy in the light of all relevant consideration.
November 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE