Punjab-Haryana High Court
Const.Harjeet Singh No.1/671 Irb vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 February, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.2215 of 2012
Date of Decision:- 06.02.2012
Const.Harjeet Singh No.1/671 IRB ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.S.N.Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the B-I test which was held in the year 2011 on erroneous grounds that there was a punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. Petitioner filed a representation but when the same was not decided, he preferred a writ petition which was disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the notice served by the petitioner on the respondents. On consideration of the said notice, order dated 9.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) has been passed vide which the mistake has been rectified and the petitioner has been held entitled to appear in the B-I test to be held in the year 2012.
Counsel apprehends that if the petitioner now passes the test and is deputed to the B-I course, he would not be held entitled to the benefit which he would have been entitled to had he been deputed in the year 2011. He submits that the petitioner should be deputed without taking the B-I Test.
C.W.P.No.2215 of 2012 -2-
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be deputed to the B-I course without taking the test cannot be accepted. However, the apprehension of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be denied the benefits which he would have been entitled to if he had appeared in the test in the year 2011 and deputed for the course, is misplaced, and the counsel is proceeding on an assumption which eventuality has not arisen at present. It is apparent that the respondents have realised their mistake and have accordingly rectified the same. It goes without saying that in such circumstances, consequential benefits, in case the petitioner fulfils the requirement, shall follow from the date he is entitled to.
Petition stands disposed of.
February 06, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE