Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 7 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047798
CWP-16842-2001
2001(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
206 CWP-16842-2001(O&M)
Decided On: 07.04.2025
RAMESH KUMAR
....PETITIONER(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
....RESPONDENT(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Ms. Niharika Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate
for respondent no.3/HPSC.
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral)
The petition has been filed, filed inter alia alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the selection of respondents no.4 and 5 to the post of Lecturer in Commerce (College cadre), cadre), Haryana Education Service Service-II, against the postss reserved for Ex-servicemen/Dependent Ex servicemen/Dependent of Ex Ex-servicemen (ESM/DESM),, as they were not applicants for these posts.
2. As per averments in the petition, respondent no.4 was not an applicant under ESM/DESM category, nor did he qualify National Education Test (NET) which is an essential qualification for the posts in question. Regarding respondent no.5, no.5, the allegation is that he did not qualify NET and applied under Backward Class category, not under the category he has been selected, i.e., ESM.
ESM
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/HPSC, however, contends that as per the facts apparent from the application forms submitted by respondents no.4 and 5, 5, both of them have applied under ESM/DESM 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-04-2025 01:43:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047798 CWP-16842-2001 2001(O&M) -2- category as well. He also contends that respondent no.
no.4 has qualified State Eligibility Test (SET) conducted by the State of Jammu and Kashmir which is equivalent to NET, and respondent no.5 has qualified NET conducted by the UGC. Accordingly, Accordingly, both the respondents have been selected under the category they applied, and are fully qualified for the posts as well.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the aforementioned facts.
5. In view thereof, thereof, there is no merit in the petition petition, and it stands dismissed.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s) application(s),, if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
(TRIBHUVAN TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA DAHIYA) 07.04.2025 JUDGE Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-04-2025 01:43:52 :::