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 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Krishan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 September, 2011

Bench: Permod Kohli, Ritu Bahri

LPA No. 1718 of 2011                                        -1-




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                        LPA No. 1718 of 2011
                        Date of decision:- 15.09.2011


Krishan

                                             ...Appellant

                        Versus

State of Haryana and others

                                             ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI


Present:-    Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
             for the appellant.

PERMOD KOHLI J.(Oral)

This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2010 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

LPA No. 1718 of 2011 -2-

Petitioner, who applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) approached this Court seeking direction that the viva-voce test should not be conducted in English and he may be allowed to answer in Hindi, same being National language and official language in the State of Haryana. Other plea raised was that 50% minimum qualifying marks fixed for the ex-servicemen category is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as less than 50% qualifying marks are fixed for SC and ST Categories. It was further contended that for the Scheduled Caste and Backward Class Category the qualifying marks are 45%.

We have perused the judgment impugned. We fail to understand the basis for such a plea raised by the petitioner when admittedly the Court language in State of Haryana is English. On the question of qualifying marks for reservation for ex-servicemen, suffice it to so such reservation is not constitutional reservation and cannot be treated at par with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. There is absolutely no merits in this petition, which is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. However, Mr. Malik, Advocate has fairly conceded that there was nothing much substantial in the appeal, we refrain from imposing cost.

Dismissed.




                                            ( PERMOD KOHLI )
                                                 JUDGE



September 15, 2011                           ( RITU BAHRI )
Vijay Asija                                       JUDGE