Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Singh Hooda vs State Of Haryana And Another on 17 September, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 23646 of 2011
Date of decision: 17th September, 2012
Jitender Singh Hooda
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
On 19th December, 2011, after considering the submissions made, this Court passed the following order:
"The petitioner has applied for the post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering as also for the post of Programmer. Petitioner possesses Diploma in Master in Computer Applications from Indira Gandhi National Open University. Vide communication dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) the petitioner was informed that no under-graduate/post-graduate degree or diploma in Engineering/Technology obtained from distance education would be valid for initial appointment and promotion, if, the same are not approved from the Joint Committee of University Grants Commission or All India Council for Teachers Education.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment dated 13.1.2010 passed in CWP No.1405 of 2009 titled as Vikas Kumar Vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, wherein it was held that if the State was to look towards Civil Writ Petition No.23646 of 2011 2 the approval from A.I.C.T.E. and upon such approval not being obtained to disqualify a person, who was holding a Diploma issued by a deemed university through distance education mode, the same would be bad in law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the interview for the post of Lecturer, Computer Engineering as also for the post of Programmer are scheduled for today itself i.e. 19.12.2011.
Notice of motion, returnable on 5.1.2012. In the meantime, respondent No.2 is directed to interview the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering also as for the post of Programmer. However, the result of interview pertaining the petitioner shall not be declared till next date of hearing.
Copy of this order be furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of Court Secretary of the Bench."
The order dated 5th January, 2012 passed by this Court may also be noticed at this stage, which reads thus:
"In terms of the direction given by this Court on 19.12.2011, the counsel appearing for the second respondent, Principal of the College says that the petitioner shall also be considered and the results have not been announced and are placed in a sealed cover. I allow the second respondent to communicate the decision to the petitioner independently and the petitioner will have such remedy as admissible by law.
Fresh notice be issued to respondent No.1. Adjourned to 1.5.2012."
Today, Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, has stated before this Court that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court as aforesaid, the petitioner has been Civil Writ Petition No.23646 of 2011 3 considered for the post of Lecturer Computer and has not been found suitable, and the said result has been communicated to him.
In view of the aforesaid fact, which could not be controverted, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition has become infructuous and deserves to be dismissed as such.
Ordered accordingly.
Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the result whereby he has been found not-suitable in accordance with law.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE September 17, 2012 rps