Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited vs Garima Jindal And Another on 9 November, 2012

Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH


           Letters Patent Appeal No.1775 of 2012 (O&M)
             DATE OF DECISION: November 09, 2012

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited
                                                            .....Appellant
                                versus

Garima Jindal and another
                                                      .....Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JUDGE


Present:     Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the appellant

             Mr.R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
             Mr.Samrat Malik, Advocate for the caveators/
             respondent No.1
                  ..


A.K. SIKRI, C.J.: (Oral)

The admitted facts are that Haryana Staff Selection Commission vide Advertisement No.1/2009 dated 10.1.2009 had advertised various posts which included 42 posts of Junior Accountant. Twenty of these posts were earmarked for General Category and others were reserved under different categories, which included 3 posts in Ex-serviceman Category. It is also an admitted case that on the basis of selection, respondent No.1 herein was placed at Serial No.1 in the waiting-list. The Selection Commission could not find sufficient candidates in the ex-serviceman reserved category. As per the extant rules, such posts are to be diverted to General Category. As a consequence, the respondent No.1, who was at Serial No.1 in the LPA-1775-2012 -2- waiting-list, was entitled to appointment, as the posts were available. Discussing these very aspects in detail with reference to the rule position and case law, the learned single Judge has directed for appointment of respondent No.1 as Junior Accountant with effect from the date her other batch mates were appointed. At the same time, actual arrears of pay are denied to her.

We do not find any error in the impugned judgment. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.




                                                ( A.K. SIKRI )
                                                CHIEF JUSTICE



November 09, 2012                           (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
pc                                                 JUDGE




                                                                     2