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 1, Cited by 5]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anamika Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 April, 2013

Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain

Review Application No. 98 of 2013 in/and                                         1
CWP No. 18569 of 2012 (O&M)


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                           Review Application No. 98 of 2013 in/and
                                           CWP No. 18569 of 2012 (O&M)
                                           Date of Decision : 02.04.2013

               Anamika Gupta
                                                             ...Applicant/Petitioner

                                             Versus

               State of Haryana and others
                                                                     ...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate,
         for the applicant/petitioner.

               Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

                                                ****
A.K. SIKRI, C.J. (ORAL)

The writ petition of the applicant/petitioner was dismissed on the ground that she does not have the experience of four years as PGT as on 11.04.2012 and instead she possesses the experience as TGT which cannot be taken into consideration. In this review application, the applicant/petitioner claims that she has experience of four years even as PGT as on 11.04.2012, though she was working as TGT. Documents in support of this experience are filed alongwith the review application (Annexures P6 and P7).

2. The submission of the applicant/petitioner appears to be correct in view of Annexure P6 annexed alongwith this review application which is an experience certificate issued by Maharaja Aggarsain Kanya Varisht Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jind. As per this Review Application No. 98 of 2013 in/and 2 CWP No. 18569 of 2012 (O&M) experience certificate dated 29.07.2006, the applicant/petitioner had been working as PGT from 06.07.1998. Thereafter, as per Annexure P7, she worked as Mathematics Lecturer w.e.f. 30.07.2006 to 21.02.2012. These two documents clearly show that the applicant/petitioner has the requisite four years' experience as PGT as on 11.04.2012.

3. We accordingly allow this review application and recall our orders dated 11.12.2012. As a consequence, the writ petition is allowed holding that the petitioner possesses the requisite experience and she is entitled to be considered for the post of PGT in terms of this Court's judgement in CWP No. 15929 of 2012 titled as Shivani Gupta and others Vs State of Haryana, decided on 21.12.2012.

(A.K. SIKRI) CHIEF JUSTICE (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 02.04.2013 Amodh