Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devender Sachdeva vs Kurukshetra University on 31 May, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No.11287 of 2012(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11287 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.05.2012
Devender Sachdeva, S/o Late Sh. Kasturi Lal, Superintendent-
cum-P.R.O. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others.
... Petitioners
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra through its Registrar, and
others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? YES
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? YES
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? YES
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners' challenge is to the reassignment of seniority on the basis of a Government notification issued providing for accelerated promotion for reserve category pursuant to the 85th Amendment of the Constitution. The Government notification issued on 16.03.2006 has been affirmed by a resolution of the University.
2. The petitioners' challenge is for the fact that the CWP No.11287 of 2012(O&M) [2] Government notification has been issued without appropriate data. Further challenge is that the seniority positions have sought to be disturbed unmindful of the fact that the notification is prospective in nature and as indeed clarified through a further communication made by the Government to all the Heads of the Departments on 27.12.2006.
3. As regards the first challenge that the notification issued is without appropriate examination of the data, the petitioners cannot have such an objection, if the Government has stated in the notification dated 16.03.2006 that the issue of accelerated seniority has been done after a careful consideration of the matter in the light of the 85th amendment. The matter ought to rest there and it is not possible for any of the petitioner to raise the question that the policy of the State for implementing 85th amendment is still open to question.
4. However, the petitioners' grievance is that they made a representation giving their objection to the reassignment of seniority without reference to the instructions given by the State on 27.12.2006. The representation is placed before this Court as having been given on 15/16.05.2012. The representation of the petitioners regarding their objection to the reassignment of seniority by an alleged retrospective operation of the instructions shall be examined in the light of clarifactory instructions given by the State on 27.12.2006. The University CWP No.11287 of 2012(O&M) [3] will consider the representation and take a decision within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
31st May, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) rajan JUDGE