Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Others --Respondents on 10 May, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10052 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.5.2013
Dinesh Kumar --Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. Ajay Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, learned Sr. D.A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3. Requisite copies of the writ paper book have been furnished to him.
In view of the order that I intend to pass, there would be no requirement of calling for a reply from the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Guest Teacher (Lecturer in Hindi, School Cadre) and he worked as such w.e.f. 16.10.2006 till March, 2008. Services of the petitioner were, thereafter, dispensed with. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in terms of filing CWP No. 329 of 2010 which had been disposed of on 12.1.2010 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking re-engagement on Guest Faculty in the light of Govt. Policy dated 12.12.2008. In purported compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner for being re- engaged as a Guest Faculty Hindi Lecturer has been rejected in terms of order dated 9.4.2010 (Annexure P-2) on the basis that he does not possess CWP No.10052 of 2013 (O&M) -2- the requisite qualifications as he had qualified M.A., Hindi on the basis of Parbhakar and had not done B.A. Counsel has referred to a judgement dated 14.5.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No. 15527 of 2010 titled as Satbir Singh Sahrawat Vs. State of Haryana & others, wherein precisely this very issue was dealt with and it had been held that under the Haryana State School Education (Lecturers School Cadre) (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 the only requirement was to possess M.A in Hindi from a recognized university and as such it had been held that merely on account of the fact that a candidate had obtained such degree of M.A., Hindi on the basis of Parbhakar will not render the candidate ineligible.
On the face of it the reasoning adopted in the impugned order dated 9.4.2010 (Annexure P-2) is in clear conflict of the judgement passed by this Court in Satbir Singh Sahrawat's case (supra). The matter, accordingly, does require reconsideration.
The impugned order dated 9.4.2010 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. The D.E.O., Jind, respondent no.3 is directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of judgement passed by this Court in Satbir Singh Sahrawat's case (supra) and to pass a speaking order on the representation dated 15.4.2013 (Annexure P-11) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, it is clarified that the claim of the petitioner seeking re-engagement as a Guest Faculty will be subject to availability of work and other eligibility conditions.
Petition disposed of.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 10.5.2013 lucky