Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Parveen Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 July, 2015

Sarika vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 7 January, 2020

58. It is now well settled that if a reserved category candidate secures more marks than the General category candidate then such reserved category candidate has to be considered for appointment in the General category. Reference in this regard may be made to judgements rendered in cases Jitendra Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others : 2010(3) SCC 119; Kulwant Singh Vs. Punjab University, Chandigarh : 1995(1) S.C.T. 495; Parveen Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others : 2017(1) Law Herald 615 and Vishal Vs. Punjab University, Chandigarh : 1995(2) S.C.T. 461.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 2 - R K Jain - Full Document

Raman Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 March, 2021

Transfer is an exigency of service. The principle of law laid down in a catena of decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under 9 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2021 21:01:56 ::: CWP No. 1927 of 2021 - 10 - Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders. These parameters, for this Court to interfere in the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-4), are not attracted in the present case and in fact none of these grounds are attracted in the present case. The petitioner is governed by the Haryana Municipal Corporation Employees (Recruitment and Conditions) Service Rules, 1998 and Rule 12 thereof makes it patent that he is liable to serve at any place, in any Municipal Corporation in the State of Haryana, on being ordered so to do by the appointing authority or the State Government. This is not the first time that the petitioner is being transferred. As far the contention by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has already been transferred three times in the last four years and that the present transfer is just 1 year 5 months after the last transfer, suffice is it to say that the petitioner has served at other places for shorter periods without protest and demur. Another argument raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned transfer would cause great hardship and suffering to the petitioner whose wife is suffering from certain health issues and needs constant support and care. The petitioner in support of this contention has placed reliance upon medical prescriptions (Annexures P-5 and P-6). However, the transfer of the petitioner cannot be set aside on this count by the Court. It is for the employer to consider any personal inconvenience that a transfer may cause to an employee and/or his family and the Court cannot be guided by emotions.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A Sarin - Full Document

Anil Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 July, 2021

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 14-07-2021 06:35:47 ::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18934 of 2017 (O&M) -2- In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no further indulgence is liable to be granted to the petitioner. The Division Bench in 'Parveen Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others' 2008 (4) SCT 596 has held that the transfer is a incidence in service and the guidelines issued by the State are not enforceable for the purpose of assailing it and the employee cannot claim to remain at a particular place or post of his choice.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Vinod Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2015

It is a matter of record that this Court passed a detailed order dated 3.7.2015 (Annexure P-3) in CRR No.2780 of 2013 (Parveen Kumar v. State of Punjab and others) available from pages 37 to 70 of the paper-book MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2015.09.03 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticty of this document. CRM-M-29084-2015 -2- and this order has become final against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the offence is under Section 302 IPC and allegations are serious in nature. All these aspects were discussed, considered and appreciated by this Court in detail, while passing the order dated 3.7.2015. Petitioner challenged the said order dated 3.7.2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but his SLP has been dismissed and the order (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court has become final against the petitioner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R S Malik - Full Document
1   2 Next