Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suman vs . State Of Haryana & Another on 6 December, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
237
CWP No. 23531 of 2012
Suman Vs. State of Haryana & another
Present: Mr. Divay Sarup, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks time to file reply.
Adjourned to 5.2.2013.
Meanwhile, application of the petitioner in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 8.11.2012 be accepted provisionally by respondent No.
2 and she be interviewed for the post of Primary Teacher. Result of the
petitioner be not declared and kept in a sealed cover till further orders of
this Court. The interview shall not confer any right, equity or claim in
favour of the petitioner.
Copy of this order be given to the counsel for the petitioner under
signatures of the Special Secretary, attached to this Court.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
243
CWP No. 22818 of 2012
Mukesh Rani Vs. State of Haryana & another
Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
Adjourned to 5.2.2013.
Meanwhile, application of the petitioner in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 8.11.2012 be accepted provisionally by respondent No.
2 and she be interviewed for the post of Primary Teacher. Result of the
petitioner be not declared and kept in a sealed cover till further orders of
this Court. The interview shall not confer any right, equity or claim in
favour of the petitioner.
Copy of this order be given to the counsel for the petitioner under
signatures of the Special Secretary, attached to this Court.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
229
CWP No. 20752 of 2012
Rahul Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. BS Mittal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
Adjourned to 28.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
232
CWP No.21389 of 2012
Satvir Singh Vs. State of Haryana & another
Present: Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
Adjourned to 28.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
236
CWP No. 22462 of 2012
Manju Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply copy of the
writ petition to Mr. Nagrath during the course of the day.
Adjourned to 28.1.2013 for arguments.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
233
CWP No. 21390 of 2012
Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & another
Present: Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
List on 28.1.2013 for arguments.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
241
CWP No. 20740 of 2012
Anita Kumari Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for short adjournment to
file reply and to seek instructions.
List on 12.12.2012.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
240
CWP No. 20339 of 2012
Manju Bala & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: None for the petitioners.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
List on 28.1.2013 for arguments.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
242
CWP No. 21557 of 2012
Ranvir Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. Rajesh Dhiman, Advocate,
for Mr.Rajender Sorout, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
As per report of registry, counsel for the petitioner did not file
process fee and therefore, notice could not be issued to the respondents.
Let dasti notices be issued to effect service upon the
respondents for 20.12.2012.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
239
CWP No. 14589 of 2012
Sham Lal and anr. Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate,
for Mr. PS Jammu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana,
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
No one appears for respondent Nos.4 to 7 despite service.
Counsel for the petitioners is directed to give present correct
address of respondent Nos.8 to 10 within a period of two weeks. On
doing so, fresh notices be issued to respondents No.8 to 10 for
1.5.2013.
In the meanwhile, the served respondents may file reply.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
238
CWP No.17653 of 2011
Gurdai Vs. Northern Railway Ambala Cantt and anr.
Present: Ms. Bindu Goel , Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. GS Bal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
Mr. G.S. Bal, on the basis of written instructions received by
him, states that the claim with regard to grant of pension had not been
opted for by the deceased husband of the petitioner and an amount of
Rs.21,271/- was released to the petitioner on the death of her husband
on 22.5.1981. He states that the reply will be filed within a period of
four weeks.
List for further consideration on 29.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
223
CWP No.14586 of 2012
Rajinder Parshad Vs. State of Haryana
Present: Mr. KK Chahal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
List on 1.5.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
224
CWP No. 14596 of 2012
Jaikishan Gulia Vs. Union of India & others
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate,
for UOI.
Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in Court, is taken on
record. Copy be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner.
Adjourned to 1.5.2013 for arguments.
Replication, if any, be filed within a period of eight weeks.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
203
CWP No. 19283 of 2009(O&M)
Hans Raj & others Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate,
for Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
None for respondent No.4.
Counsel for respondent No.3 prays for another opportunity to
file affidavit and response in compliance of order dated 30.4.2012.
No ground for further adjournment is made out. However, in
the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to file affidavit,
subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. To be deposited with the
Secretary, Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh.
Adjourned to 17.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
203
CWP No. 16226 of 2010
Rakesh Kumar & others Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate,
for Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
None for respondent No.4.
Counsel for respondent No.3 prays for another opportunity to
file affidavit and response in compliance of order dated 30.4.2012.
No ground for further adjournment is made out. However, in
the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to file affidavit,
subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. To be deposited with the
Secretary, Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh.
Adjourned to 17.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
203
CWP No. 7267 of 2010
Gajender Kumar & others Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. SP Chahar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
None for respondent No.5.
Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate,
for Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.6.
Counsel for respondent No.6 prays for another opportunity to
file affidavit and response in compliance of order dated 30.4.2012.
No ground for further adjournment is made out. However, in
the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to file affidavit,
subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. To be deposited with the
Secretary, Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh.
Adjourned to 17.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
203
CWP No. 8052 of 2010
Ms. Mamta Tiwari Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. SP Chahar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
None for respondent No.5.
Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate,
for Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.6.
Counsel for respondent No.6 prays for another opportunity to
file affidavit and response in compliance of order dated 30.4.2012.
No ground for further adjournment is made out. However, in
the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to file affidavit,
subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. To be deposited with the
Secretary, Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh.
Adjourned to 17.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
203
CWP No.5351 of 2010
Poonam Alohia & others Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mrs. Anu Chatrath, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate,
for Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
List along with CWP No.19283 of 2009 on 17.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
202
CWP No. 5980 of 2007
Kamal Kumar Vs. Union of India & others
Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
None has put in appearance on behalf of respondents despite
second call.
In the interest of justice, adjourned to 1.5.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
201
CWP No. 18946 of 2005
Lt. Col. Sultan Singh Ralhan Vs. Union of India & others
Present: None.
Case has been called twice. None has put in appearance on
behalf of the parties.
In the interest of justice, adjourned to 1.5.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
220
CWP No.7481 of 2012
Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. R.P. Sorout, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Manisha, Advocate,
for Mr. JS Hooda, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
Counsel for respondent No.5 prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
List for arguments on 1.5.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
645
CWP No. 750 of 2004
RP Vig Vs. The State of Haryana
Present: Petitioner in person.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
The petitioner states that against the order of his conviction,
he preferred an appeal which is numbered as Crl. Appeal No.661-SB of
2000. He prays that the present case be taken up for hearing after the
decision of the said criminal appeal.
In the light of statement made by the petitioner, the petitioner
is granted liberty to move an application for hearing of the case after
the decision of the criminal appeal.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
207
CWP No. 8094 of 2011
Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. Sawinder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent Nos.2, 4 & 6. Let notice be issued to the Advocate General,
Punjab for 1.5.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
205
CWP No. 3298 of 2011
Rohtash Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. DPS Bajwa, Advocate,
for Mr. KS Dhaliwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
A request for adjournment has been made on behalf of
counsel for the petitioner, who is stated to be in some personal
difficulty.
In the interest of justice, adjourned to 1.5.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
225
CWP No. 17081 of 2012
Sohan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. ,Amandeep Singh Advocate,
for Mr. PS Jammu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
Reply on behalf of the respondents filed in Court, is taken on
record. Copy thereof has been given to the counsel for the petitioner,
who prays for and is granted eight weeks' time to file replication.
List for arguments on 1.5.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
228
CWP No. 20719 of 2012
Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Ms. Manisha , Advocate,
for Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
List for arguments on 28.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
227
CWP No. 20667 of 2012
Dhirendra Chhetri Vs. Union of India & others
Present: Mr. RD Bawa, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 prays for and is granted
eight weeks' time to file reply.
List for arguments on 6.3.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
226
CWP No. 19896 of 2012
Chander Kala Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. RN Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
As per report of registry, counsel for the petitioner did not file
process fee and therefore, notics could not be issued to the respondents.
Now, on doing so, notice be issued to the respondents for 1.5.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
231
CWP No. 20889 of 2012
Devender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply.
List for arguments on 20.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
230
CWP No. 20773 of 2012
Rajesh Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Haryana & anr.
Present: Mr. SS Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted eight
weeks' time to file reply. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to
supply copy of the writ petition to Mr. Nagrath during the course of the
day.
List for arguments on 20.1.2013.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 2667 of 2012
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012
Mahabir Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. SS Kharb, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 6.12.2011 (Annexure R-2) passed by the Director General State Transport, Haryana, Chandigarh rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 24235 of 2012
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012
Yogesh & another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for some time, prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action by challenging the vires of the conditions imposed in the advertisement as also statutory rules.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 21566 of 2012
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012
Nisha Rani ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Ms. Anu Chatrah Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner contends that after the passing of the order dated 30.03.2011 by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6090 of 2010 titled as Tilak Raj Versus State of Haryana and others, whereby a direction was issued to the State of Haryana that the Guest Faculty Teachers shall not be allowed to continue beyond 31.3.2012, an application i.e. C.M. No. 17483 of 2011 for continuing the Guest Faculty Teachers beyond the said date, was moved in the High Court by the State of Haryana with a proposal, specifying therein the time schedule within which regular appointments would be made, but the said application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 15.3.2012. State of Haryana and some other Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. In Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5956 of 2012 titled as Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 30.3.2012, ordered that no fresh appointments of Guest Teachers shall be made after 1.4.2012 and the exercise indicated in the affidavit dated 19.3.2012 affirmed by the Financial CWP No. 21566 of 2012 -2- Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department to adhere to the time schedule must be completed within time specified in the Scheme and no further extension or deviation therefrom will be permitted. It was further ordered that till then, the Guest Teachers may be allowed to continue to function as they have been doing so far.
She on this basis submits that as per the schedule given by the Government of Haryana and the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Guest Faculty cannot continue in service beyond 31.12.2012.
On a Public Interest Litigation filed in this Court, an order dated 10.9.2012 was passed in CWP No. 3990 of 2012 titled as Bijender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, on the basis of which, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by the Director, Elementary/Secondary Education, Haryana. Challenging the said order, some of the Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18434 of 2012 titled as Neelam Kumari and others Versus State of Haryana and others, in which, vide order dated 19.10.2012, Special Leave to Appeal stands granted and notice has been issued. In the meantime, having regard to the earlier order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5956 of 2012, Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, where it was observed that the Guest Teachers shall be allowed to continue as they had been doing, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10.09.2012 has been stayed.
Notice of motion was issued by this Court and the operation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was stayed. CWP No. 21566 of 2012 -3-
Counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment to file reply to the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till 31.12.2012 as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the light of the facts and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as recorded above, this Court is of the view that reply on behalf of the State is not necessary as in the light of the Supreme Court order Guest Teachers would continue in service till 31.12.2012. The present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.12.2012, on which date, the services of the petitioner shall automatically stand terminated. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach the Court in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court grants further extension in service to the Guest Faculty Teachers.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 21547 of 2012
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012
Puneet ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Ms. Anu Chatrah Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner contends that after the passing of the order dated 30.03.2011 by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6090 of 2010 titled as Tilak Raj Versus State of Haryana and others, whereby a direction was issued to the State of Haryana that the Guest Faculty Teachers shall not be allowed to continue beyond 31.3.2012, an application i.e. C.M. No. 17483 of 2011 for continuing the Guest Faculty Teachers beyond the said date, was moved in the High Court by the State of Haryana with a proposal, specifying therein the time schedule within which regular appointments would be made, but the said application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 15.3.2012. State of Haryana and some other Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. In Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5956 of 2012 titled as Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 30.3.2012, ordered that no fresh appointments of Guest Teachers shall be made after 1.4.2012 and the exercise indicated in the affidavit dated 19.3.2012 affirmed by the Financial CWP No. 21547 of 2012 -2- Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department to adhere to the time schedule must be completed within time specified in the Scheme and no further extension or deviation therefrom will be permitted. It was further ordered that till then, the Guest Teachers may be allowed to continue to function as they have been doing so far.
She on this basis submits that as per the schedule given by the Government of Haryana and the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Guest Faculty cannot continue in service beyond 31.12.2012.
On a Public Interest Litigation filed in this Court, an order dated 10.9.2012 was passed in CWP No. 3990 of 2012 titled as Bijender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, on the basis of which, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by the Director, Elementary/Secondary Education, Haryana. Challenging the said order, some of the Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18434 of 2012 titled as Neelam Kumari and others Versus State of Haryana and others, in which, vide order dated 19.10.2012, Special Leave to Appeal stands granted and notice has been issued. In the meantime, having regard to the earlier order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5956 of 2012, Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, where it was observed that the Guest Teachers shall be allowed to continue as they had been doing, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10.09.2012 has been stayed.
Notice of motion was issued by this Court and the operation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was stayed. CWP No. 21547 of 2012 -3-
Counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment to file reply to the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till 31.12.2012 as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the light of the facts and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as recorded above, this Court is of the view that reply on behalf of the State is not necessary as in the light of the Supreme Court order Guest Teachers would continue in service till 31.12.2012. The present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.12.2012, on which date, the services of the petitioner shall automatically stand terminated. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach the Court in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court grants further extension in service to the Guest Faculty Teachers.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 4699 of 2011
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012
Gajender Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Ms. Anu Chatrah Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is still in service. She contends that after the passing of the order dated 30.03.2011 by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6090 of 2010 titled as Tilak Raj Versus State of Haryana and others, whereby a direction was issued to the State of Haryana that the Guest Faculty Teachers shall not be allowed to continue beyond 31.3.2012, an application i.e. C.M. No. 17483 of 2011 for continuing the Guest Faculty Teachers beyond the said date, was moved in the High Court by the State of Haryana with a proposal, specifying therein the time schedule within which regular appointments would be made, but the said application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 15.3.2012. State of Haryana and some other Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. In Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5956 of 2012 titled as Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 30.3.2012, ordered that no fresh appointments of Guest Teachers shall be made after 1.4.2012 and the exercise indicated in the affidavit dated 19.3.2012 affirmed by the Financial CWP No. 4699 of 2011 -2- Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department to adhere to the time schedule must be completed within time specified in the Scheme and no further extension or deviation therefrom will be permitted. It was further ordered that till then, the Guest Teachers may be allowed to continue to function as they have been doing so far.
She on this basis submits that as per the schedule given by the Government of Haryana and the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Guest Faculty cannot continue in service beyond 31.12.2012.
On a Public Interest Litigation filed in this Court, an order dated 10.9.2012 was passed in CWP No. 3990 of 2012 titled as Bijender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, on the basis of which, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by the Director, Elementary/Secondary Education, Haryana. Challenging the said order, some of the Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18434 of 2012 titled as Neelam Kumari and others Versus State of Haryana and others, in which, vide order dated 19.10.2012, Special Leave to Appeal stands granted and notice has been issued. In the meantime, having regard to the earlier order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5956 of 2012, Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, where it was observed that the Guest Teachers shall be allowed to continue as they had been doing, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10.09.2012 has been stayed.
Notice of motion was issued by this Court in connected matters and the operation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was CWP No. 4699 of 2011 -3- stayed therein.
Counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment to file reply to the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till 31.12.2012 as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the light of the facts and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as recorded above, this Court is of the view that reply on behalf of the State is not necessary as in the light of the Supreme Court order Guest Teachers would continue in service till 31.12.2012. The present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.12.2012, on which date, the services of the petitioner shall automatically stand terminated. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach the Court in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court grants further extension in service to the Guest Faculty Teachers.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 5361 of 2011
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012
Rajender Mohan ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Ms. Anu Chatrah Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is still in service. She contends that after the passing of the order dated 30.03.2011 by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6090 of 2010 titled as Tilak Raj Versus State of Haryana and others, whereby a direction was issued to the State of Haryana that the Guest Faculty Teachers shall not be allowed to continue beyond 31.3.2012, an application i.e. C.M. No. 17483 of 2011 for continuing the Guest Faculty Teachers beyond the said date, was moved in the High Court by the State of Haryana with a proposal, specifying therein the time schedule within which regular appointments would be made, but the said application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 15.3.2012. State of Haryana and some other Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. In Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5956 of 2012 titled as Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 30.3.2012, ordered that no fresh appointments of Guest Teachers shall be made after 1.4.2012 and the exercise indicated in the affidavit dated 19.3.2012 affirmed by the Financial CWP No. 5361 of 2011 -2- Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department to adhere to the time schedule must be completed within time specified in the Scheme and no further extension or deviation therefrom will be permitted. It was further ordered that till then, the Guest Teachers may be allowed to continue to function as they have been doing so far.
She on this basis submits that as per the schedule given by the Government of Haryana and the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Guest Faculty cannot continue in service beyond 31.12.2012.
On a Public Interest Litigation filed in this Court, an order dated 10.9.2012 was passed in CWP No. 3990 of 2012 titled as Bijender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, on the basis of which, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by the Director, Elementary/Secondary Education, Haryana. Challenging the said order, some of the Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18434 of 2012 titled as Neelam Kumari and others Versus State of Haryana and others, in which, vide order dated 19.10.2012, Special Leave to Appeal stands granted and notice has been issued. In the meantime, having regard to the earlier order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5956 of 2012, Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, where it was observed that the Guest Teachers shall be allowed to continue as they had been doing, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10.09.2012 has been stayed.
Notice of motion was issued by this Court and the operation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was stayed. CWP No. 5361 of 2011 -3-
Counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment to file reply to the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till 31.12.2012 as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the light of the facts and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as recorded above, this Court is of the view that reply on behalf of the State is not necessary as in the light of the Supreme Court order Guest Teachers would continue in service till 31.12.2012. The present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.12.2012, on which date, the services of the petitioner shall automatically stand terminated. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach the Court in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court grants further extension in service to the Guest Faculty Teachers.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 5363 of 2011
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012
Babita Chaudhary ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Ms. Anu Chatrah Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is still in service. She contends that after the passing of the order dated 30.03.2011 by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6090 of 2010 titled as Tilak Raj Versus State of Haryana and others, whereby a direction was issued to the State of Haryana that the Guest Faculty Teachers shall not be allowed to continue beyond 31.3.2012, an application i.e. C.M. No. 17483 of 2011 for continuing the Guest Faculty Teachers beyond the said date, was moved in the High Court by the State of Haryana with a proposal, specifying therein the time schedule within which regular appointments would be made, but the said application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 15.3.2012. State of Haryana and some other Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. In Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5956 of 2012 titled as Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 30.3.2012, ordered that no fresh appointments of Guest Teachers shall be made after 1.4.2012 and the exercise indicated in the affidavit dated 19.3.2012 affirmed by the Financial CWP No. 5361 of 2011 -2- Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department to adhere to the time schedule must be completed within time specified in the Scheme and no further extension or deviation therefrom will be permitted. It was further ordered that till then, the Guest Teachers may be allowed to continue to function as they have been doing so far.
She on this basis submits that as per the schedule given by the Government of Haryana and the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Guest Faculty cannot continue in service beyond 31.12.2012.
On a Public Interest Litigation filed in this Court, an order dated 10.9.2012 was passed in CWP No. 3990 of 2012 titled as Bijender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, on the basis of which, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by the Director, Elementary/Secondary Education, Haryana. Challenging the said order, some of the Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18434 of 2012 titled as Neelam Kumari and others Versus State of Haryana and others, in which, vide order dated 19.10.2012, Special Leave to Appeal stands granted and notice has been issued. In the meantime, having regard to the earlier order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5956 of 2012, Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, where it was observed that the Guest Teachers shall be allowed to continue as they had been doing, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10.09.2012 has been stayed.
Notice of motion was issued by this Court and the operation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was stayed. CWP No. 5361 of 2011 -3-
Counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment to file reply to the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till 31.12.2012 as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the light of the facts and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as recorded above, this Court is of the view that reply on behalf of the State is not necessary as in the light of the Supreme Court order Guest Teachers would continue in service till 31.12.2012. The present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.12.2012, on which date, the services of the petitioner shall automatically stand terminated. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach the Court in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court grants further extension in service to the Guest Faculty Teachers.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 5383 of 2011
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012
Rachna ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Ms. Anu Chatrah Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is still in service. She contends that after the passing of the order dated 30.03.2011 by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6090 of 2010 titled as Tilak Raj Versus State of Haryana and others, whereby a direction was issued to the State of Haryana that the Guest Faculty Teachers shall not be allowed to continue beyond 31.3.2012, an application i.e. C.M. No. 17483 of 2011 for continuing the Guest Faculty Teachers beyond the said date, was moved in the High Court by the State of Haryana with a proposal, specifying therein the time schedule within which regular appointments would be made, but the said application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 15.3.2012. State of Haryana and some other Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. In Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5956 of 2012 titled as Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 30.3.2012, ordered that no fresh appointments of Guest Teachers shall be made after 1.4.2012 and the exercise indicated in the affidavit dated 19.3.2012 affirmed by the Financial CWP No. 5383 of 2011 -2- Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department to adhere to the time schedule must be completed within time specified in the Scheme and no further extension or deviation therefrom will be permitted. It was further ordered that till then, the Guest Teachers may be allowed to continue to function as they have been doing so far.
She on this basis submits that as per the schedule given by the Government of Haryana and the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Guest Faculty cannot continue in service beyond 31.12.2012.
On a Public Interest Litigation filed in this Court, an order dated 10.9.2012 was passed in CWP No. 3990 of 2012 titled as Bijender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, on the basis of which, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by the Director, Elementary/Secondary Education, Haryana. Challenging the said order, some of the Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18434 of 2012 titled as Neelam Kumari and others Versus State of Haryana and others, in which, vide order dated 19.10.2012, Special Leave to Appeal stands granted and notice has been issued. In the meantime, having regard to the earlier order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5956 of 2012, Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, where it was observed that the Guest Teachers shall be allowed to continue as they had been doing, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10.09.2012 has been stayed.
Notice of motion was issued by this Court and the operation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was stayed. CWP No. 5383 of 2011 -3-
Counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment to file reply to the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till 31.12.2012 as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the light of the facts and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as recorded above, this Court is of the view that reply on behalf of the State is not necessary as in the light of the Supreme Court order Guest Teachers would continue in service till 31.12.2012. The present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.12.2012, on which date, the services of the petitioner shall automatically stand terminated. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach the Court in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court grants further extension in service to the Guest Faculty Teachers.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
monika JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 5822 of 2011
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012
Monika ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Ms. Anu Chatrah Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is still in service. She contends that after the passing of the order dated 30.03.2011 by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6090 of 2010 titled as Tilak Raj Versus State of Haryana and others, whereby a direction was issued to the State of Haryana that the Guest Faculty Teachers shall not be allowed to continue beyond 31.3.2012, an application i.e. C.M. No. 17483 of 2011 for continuing the Guest Faculty Teachers beyond the said date, was moved in the High Court by the State of Haryana with a proposal, specifying therein the time schedule within which regular appointments would be made, but the said application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 15.3.2012. State of Haryana and some other Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. In Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5956 of 2012 titled as Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 30.3.2012, ordered that no fresh appointments of Guest Teachers shall be made after 1.4.2012 and the exercise indicated in the affidavit dated 19.3.2012 affirmed by the Financial CWP No. 5361 of 2011 -2- Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department to adhere to the time schedule must be completed within time specified in the Scheme and no further extension or deviation therefrom will be permitted. It was further ordered that till then, the Guest Teachers may be allowed to continue to function as they have been doing so far.
She on this basis submits that as per the schedule given by the Government of Haryana and the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Guest Faculty cannot continue in service beyond 31.12.2012.
On a Public Interest Litigation filed in this Court, an order dated 10.9.2012 was passed in CWP No. 3990 of 2012 titled as Bijender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, on the basis of which, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by the Director, Elementary/Secondary Education, Haryana. Challenging the said order, some of the Guest Faculty Teachers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18434 of 2012 titled as Neelam Kumari and others Versus State of Haryana and others, in which, vide order dated 19.10.2012, Special Leave to Appeal stands granted and notice has been issued. In the meantime, having regard to the earlier order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5956 of 2012, Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, where it was observed that the Guest Teachers shall be allowed to continue as they had been doing, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10.09.2012 has been stayed.
Notice of motion was issued by this Court and the operation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was stayed. CWP No. 5361 of 2011 -3-
Counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment to file reply to the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till 31.12.2012 as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the light of the facts and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as recorded above, this Court is of the view that reply on behalf of the State is not necessary as in the light of the Supreme Court order Guest Teachers would continue in service till 31.12.2012. The present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.12.2012, on which date, the services of the petitioner shall automatically stand terminated. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach the Court in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court grants further extension in service to the Guest Faculty Teachers.
6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) monika JUDGE CWP No. of 20 Vs. State of Haryana & others Present: Mr. , Advocate, for Mr. HN Khanduja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. 6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) monika JUDGE CWP No. of 20 Vs. State of Haryana & others Present: Mr. , Advocate, for Mr. HN Khanduja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manuj Nagrath, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. 6.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) monika JUDGE