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 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amit Kumar vs Kurukshetra University And Others on 26 September, 2011

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                    C.W.P No.1663 of 2011 (O&M)
                                    Date of Decision:26.9.2011

Amit Kumar                                          .... Petitioner

                             Versus

Kurukshetra University and others
                                                    .... Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

Present:   Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
           Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

                      ****
              1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
              allowed to see the judgment?
              2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
              3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
              Digest?

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral)

C.M. No.12689 of 2011 The application is allowed and short reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is taken on record.

CWP No.1663 of 2011

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned selection and appointment of the respondents to the posts of Assistant Professors in the University School of Management being a farce and an eye wash on the face of it as no merit list has been prepared by the selection committee while selecting 11 candidates and no criteria has been framed, disclosed and followed as well as to frame specified criteria in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India while making selection in the University and to C.W.P No.1663 of 2011 (O&M) -2- make selection of 11 Assistant Professors in the University School of Management by following the same by way of re-advertising the above mentioned posts so as to avoid any sort of illegality.

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 states that challenge here is to the appointment of 11 candidates i.e. respondents No.4 to 14 to the post of Assistant Professors in the University School of Management. However, the said respondents have since been relieved from service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, the present petition is rendered infructuous.

Dismissed as infructuous.




26.9.2011                                      ( NIRMALJIT KAUR )
rajeev                                              JUDGE