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 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vijender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 May, 2009

Author: Ajay Tewari

Bench: Ajay Tewari

CWP No. 2499 of 2008                1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                               CWP No. 2499 of 2008

                               Date of Decision: May 05, 2009


Vijender Singh                                         ...... Petitioner


      Versus


State of Haryana and others                            ...... Respondents


Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:          Mr. S.K.Verma, Advocate
                  for the petitioner.

                  Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana
                  for respondents No. 1 to 3.

                  Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate
                  for respondents No. 4 to 6 and 8.

                  Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate
                  for respondent No.7.

                        ****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


Ajay Tewari, J.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection to 23 posts of office Secretary-ship in the Vocational Education Department of the State of Haryana.

The petitioner is himself a candidate of BCA category. He has impleaded five private respondents regarding whom he has made specific allegations of irregularities. However, these respondents are from CWP No. 2499 of 2008 2 General category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny that to be able to succeed in having the entire selection quashed it was necessary that all the selected persons should have been impleaded as a party. Learned counsel for the petitioner then stated that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with permission to file a fresh one after impleading the necessary parties. It was the opinion of this Court that having continued this petition for the past one and a half year during which time this petition has come up many times this prayer should be allowed only if costs were imposed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he is not prepared to pay costs.

Consequently this writ petition is dismissed since necessary parties have not been impleaded.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 05, 2009 sunita