Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pushpender Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 September, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.19757 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.19757 of 2013
Date of Decision: 06.09.2013
Pushpender Kumar and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)
The petitioners are circumstanced similarly as one Purshotam Sharma appellant in LPA No.847 of 2013 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 01.05.2013 (P-5) in which the following directions have been issued:-
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that once the method of recruitment is governed by the statutory rules, the Instructions have no applicability, is a correct statement of law and calls for no interference. If the department, however, has been invoking powers under Rule 9 (1) (ii) and has made appointments by way of transfer of the officials already in service of the State Government, we grant liberty to the appellant to make a representation alongwith such instances and submit his claim. The representation/claim of the appellant may be considered keeping in view the fact that the Instructions dated 8.7.1965 were still in force when he is said to have become eligible and applied. A speaking order on the representation of the appellant shall be passed by the Competent Authority within a period of six months from the date of its receipt.
With afore-mentioned observations and liberty, the appeal stands Mittal Manju 2013.09.11 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.19757 of 2013 -2- disposed of."
The petitioners also claim appointment by transfer on the strength of instructions dated 08.07.1965. In case, these instructions are alive in the State of Haryana then a direction would go in terms of the directions of the Division Bench decision in the aforesaid case.
This petition is disposed of with similar directions as in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal. Let the competent authority now decide the legal notice dated 10.06.2013 (P-7) within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the order passed on the legal notice should be a speaking one and in case, an adverse decision is to be taken then the petitioners would have a right of effective oral hearing in which case the contentions of the petitioners would be noticed and dealt with and reasons assigned for conclusions reached. After passing of the final order, let it be communicated to the petitioners forthwith.
Disposed of with the above directions.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 06.09.2013 JUDGE manju Mittal Manju 2013.09.11 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh