Showing posts with label court case. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court case. Show all posts

Court Case decision of JBT trs appointed in 2000 ROSHAN LAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA CWP 23173 OF 2010


PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
CASE STATUS INFORMATION SYSTEM

Case Status :  DISPOSED

Status of          CIVIL WRIT PETITION   23173        of    2010    
ROSHAN LAL & ORS                 Vs.                  STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
Pet's Adv.     :   RAJBIR SEHRAWAT                   
Date of Disposal :     Thursday, September 27, 2012
Last Listed On :     Thursday, September 27, 2012
List Type :  Ordinary     

FIR No. :   NO FIR DETAILS AVAILABLE / NOT A CRIMINAL CASE
    

Category :  GOVT SERVICE (HY)-sb     

Bench for Next Hearing Dt :  MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,---,---     Bench Sl. No : 208     

Bench for Last Hearing Dt :  MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,---,---     Bench Sl. No : 214     


CONNECTED APPLICATION (S)
No Connected Application.
    


CONNECTED MATTER (S)

   CWP     2377   of   2011
Case Updated on:   Thursday, September 27, 2012 

    
                       C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 27.09.2012
C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010
Roshan Lal and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.2377 of 2011
Satyawan and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:-   HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.23173 of 2010.
Mr.C.R.Dahiya, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.2377 of 2011.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G., Haryana.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
By this order, I propose to dispose of two writ petitions i.e.
C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010 and C.W.P.No.2377 of 2011 as common questions
of facts and law are involved therein.
For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP
No.23173 of 2010.   C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010 -2-
Petitioners have approached this Court asserting that they were
appointed as JBT Teachers in pursuance to the selection made in the year
2000 and that the JBT Teachers who were appointed in the subsequent
batches in pursuance to the selection held in the years 2001 and 2004, have
already been promoted to the posts of Masters/Mistresses according to the
statutory Rules. Petitioners have been denied the said benefit only on the
ground that their selection is under challenge before the Supreme Court and
the matter has been entrusted by the Supreme Court to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (for short 'CBI') for determining the genuineness of the two
lists, which are purported to be available on record, as to which one should
be given effect to. This, counsel for the petitioners, contends cannot be
made a ground for not considering the claim of the petitioners for promotion
especially when till date the petitioners formed the cadre of JBT Teachers,
they are continuing as such. He places reliance upon the order passed by
this Court in CWP No.10970 of 2009 Anil Kumar and others vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 10.11.2010 (Annexure P-6) and prays for
issuance of the same directions.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that
the claim as made by the petitioners in the present writ petition cannot be
accepted in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the
selection of JBT Teachers of the year 2000 which is pending before it. He
contends that it has been observed by the Supreme Court in its order while
entrusting the investigation to the CBI that on the result of the enquiry
would depend the fate of these two sets of persons. It is only one set of
persons which would be found to be genuine and hence entitled to hold theC.W.P.No.23173 of 2010 -3-
posts of teachers and the persons from list, if found to be false, shall have to
make room for the others. He, on this basis, contends that the claim of the
petitioners for promotion cannot be granted. Accordingly, he prays for
dismissal of the writ petitions.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
As is apparent from the assertions made by the counsel for the
parties, petitioners belong to the 2000 Batch of selected JBT Teachers.
They are serving with the respondents since the date of their appointment.
Subsequent to the selection and appointment of the petitioners, selection of
JBT Teachers has been made in the years 2001 and 2004, of which selected
and appointed candidates, have already been given promotion on the posts
of Masters/Mistresses. Petitioners are being denied promotion merely on
the ground that the matter pertaining to their selection is under challenge
and pending consideration before the Supreme Court wherein a CBI enquiry
has been marked. Nothing has been placed on record which would entitle
the respondents for non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners for
promotion. That apart, whether the list from which the petitioners have
been appointed or the other list is a genuine list, has to be determined and at
this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been selected wrongly
and there is nothing on record which would suggest that their appointment
and selection are not in consonance with law as of now.
In the light of the above and taking these aspects into
consideration, this Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra) had disposed of the
writ petition with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the case ofC.W.P.No.23173 of 2010 -4-
the petitioners for promotion in terms of the eligibility criteria laid down
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the order. The stand of the respondents in the present writ petition also
cannot be accepted for non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the
present writ petitions are disposed of with directions to the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the posts of
Masters/Mistresses in accordance with law, within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
September  27,  2012    ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
poonam             JUDGE
  

HT ki promotion na lene walo ko bhi ACP mila,court case copy


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1) C.O.C.P.No.3001 of 2011 (O&M)
Ved Parkash and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Abhay Singh Yadav and another
...Respondents
2) C.O.C.P.No.3002 of 2011 (O&M)
Pushpa Devi and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Abhay Singh Yadav and another
...Respondents
3) C.O.C.P.No.3003 of 2011 (O&M)
Mahinder Singh Mehla and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Abhay Singh Yadav and another
...Respondents
4) C.O.C.P.No.3004 of 2011 (O&M)
Jai Gopal and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Abhay Singh Yadav and another
...Respondents
5) C.O.C.P.No.3005 of 2011 (O&M)

पीटीआइ की हाईकोर्ट ने नियुक्ति रद की, पांच माह में नई भर्ती करने का आदेश++PTI court order

पंजाब एवं हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने मंगलवार को महत्वपूर्ण फैसले में 1983 पीटीआइ की नियुक्ति को अवैध करार देते हुए रद कर दिया। नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में कर्मचारी चयन आयोग की भूमिका पर भी सवाल उठे हैं। साथ ही आयोग को पांच माह के भीतर नियमों के तहत नए सिरे से भर्ती प्रक्रिया शुरू करने का आदेश भी दिया। हाई कोर्ट के जस्टिस एजी मसीह ने एक साथ 68 याचिकाओं पर चार माह पूर्व रिजर्व रखे गए फैसले को सुनाते हुए यह आदेश जारी किया। राज्य कर्मचारी चयन आयोग ने 10 अप्रैल 2010 को फाइनल लिस्ट जारी करते हुए ये नियुक्तियां की थीं। कोर्ट ने कहा कि नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया के दौरान साक्षात्कार होल्ड करवाने वाले आयोग की सेलेक्शन कमेटी के सदस्यों द्वारा कार्यवाही में शामिल न होना नकारात्मक छवि को उजागर करता है। दस्तावेज खुलासा करते हैं कि नियुक्तियां निर्धारित नियमों के तहत नहीं हुई और इन्हें गैरकानूनी कहना गलत नहीं है। खंडपीठ ने कमीशन की कार्यप्रणाली पर सवाल उठाते यहां तक कहा कि बहुसदस्यीय कमीशन होने के बाद भी कार्यप्रणाली से ऐसा लगता है कि यह सब एक व्यक्ति के कहने से चल रहा है। कोर्ट ने कमीशन के चेयरमैन व सदस्यों पर भी तल्ख टिप्पणी की
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 11.9.2012.
CWP No. 15656 of 2010
Sanjeev Kumar and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 11695 of 2010
Kailash Chander and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 2613 of 2011
Tej Singh and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 7067 of 2010
Krishan Kumar and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8154 of 2010
Dharampal and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another

अंग्रेजी लेक्चरर के आवेदकों ने दायर की याचिका

हरियाणा लोक सेवा आयोग द्वारा की गई लेक्चरर (स्कूल कैडर) की भर्तियों से असंतुष्ट उम्मीदवारों ने कोर्ट का सहारा लेना शुरू कर दिया है। इतिहास लेक्चरर (स्कूल कैडर) के बाद अब अंग्रेजी लेक्चरर (स्कूल कैडर) भर्ती मामले में भी पंजाब एवं हरियाणा हाईकोर्ट में कुछ उम्मीदवारों ने याचिका दायर की है। मामले की अगली सुनवाई 22 नवंबर को होगी। हरियाणा लोक सेवा आयोग द्वारा जारी किए गए इतिहास (स्कूल कैडर) के परिणाम में काफी गड़बड़ी उम्मीदवारों ने जताई थी। इसके तहत 26 दिसंबर 2010 को स्क्रीनिंग टेस्ट हुआ था, जिसका परिणाम 31 दिसंबर 2010 आया। एक जून 2012 को इसका फाइनल रिजल्ट घोषित किया गया। एक जून को घोषित अंग्रेजी लेक्चरर (स्कूल कैडर) के फाइनल रिजल्ट पर भी उम्मीदवारों ने सवाल किए थे। इसमें एससी कैटेगरी का रोल नंबर 5335 और भूतपूर्व सैनिक कैटेगरी के 5270 का फाइनल चयन किया गया था जबकि यह दोनों रोल नंबर लिखित परीक्षा में अयोग्य ठहराए गए थे। 3834, 3962, 4287, 4838, 5767, 6356 रोल भूतपूर्व सैनिक के आश्रित हैं और इनका चयन फाइनल सूची में कर दिया गया जबकि 23 भूतपूर्व सैनिक लिखित परीक्षा में योग्य

adhoc service & seniority list mamla-Court decision


CWP No. 3114 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 3114 of 2012
Date of Decision : February 21, 2012
Kalawanti Thakral and others
PETITIONERS ....
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
RESPONDENTS .....
CORAM  : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
*   *   *
Present : Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
*   *   *
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer that
the ad-hoc service rendered by them prior to the regularization is not
being counted towards the seniority despite their initial selection
being in accordance with the statutory Rules. They contend that the
claim made by them in their representations, which have been
appended as Annexure P-6 (Colly), is based upon a Division Bench
judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 2409 of 2008 titled as
Vijay Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided CWP No. 3114 of 2012 2
on 18.12.2008, wherein similarly placed employees of the same
department have been held entitled to the benefit of counting the adhoc service towards seniority for promotion to the post of Lecturer.
Petitioners contend that unless the claim of the petitioners is decided

शिक्षक भर्ती में शामिल हो सकेंगे टेट के फर्स्ट लेवल में पास बीएड धारी

जोधपुर.आरटेट के फर्स्ट लेवल में पास बीएड डिग्रीधारक अब तृतीय श्रेणी शिक्षक भर्ती परीक्षा में शामिल हो सकेंगे। राजस्थान हाईकोर्ट ने शनिवार को इस संबंध में आदेश जारी किए। न्यायाधीश गोपालकृष्ण व्यास ने कहा कि योग्यता के बावजूद केवल एक तारीख के बाद किसी योग्य व्यक्ति को अयोग्य घोषित करना उचित नहीं है। इस मामले में 17 मई को बहस पूरी हो गई थी, लेकिन कोर्ट ने फैसला सुरक्षित रख लिया था। बहस में कोर्ट ने एनसीटीई, राज्य सरकार तथा माध्यमिक शिक्षा बोर्ड की दलीलें खारिज कर दी थीं।
मामले को लेकर वीराराम व अन्य ने याचिकाएं दायर की थीं। इन्होंने न्यायालय को बताया था कि शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम 2009 तथा एनसीटीई के नियमों के अनुसार टेट के फस्र्ट लेवल में उत्तीर्ण बीएड डिग्रीधारी तृतीय श्रेणी शिक्षक भर्ती परीक्षा- 2012 में कक्षा 1 से 5 तक अध्यापन कराने के योग्य हैं, जबकि राज्य सरकार ने 1 जनवरी 2012 तक ही इन अभ्यर्थियों को इस भर्ती परीक्षा के योग्य माना है। 
चूंकि, शिक्षक भर्ती परीक्षा के आवेदन इस साल फरवरी के अंत में मांगे गए थे, ऐसे में टेट के प्रथम स्तर में पास बीएड डिग्रीधारक अभ्यर्थी अयोग्य घोषित हो गए। राज्य सरकार की ओर से अतिरिक्त महाधिवक्ता जीआर पूनिया, एनसीटीई के अधिवक्ता कुलदीप माथुर व बोर्ड के अधिवक्ता राकेश अरोड़ा ने सरकार के आदेश को

guest tr contract letter case no cwp 7121 of 2010


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 7121 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 20, 2012
ARUN KUMAR
....... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
.... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
PRESENT: Mr. GP Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Narender Hooda, Senior Additional Advocate
General, Haryana.
RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (Oral)
This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking
directions from the Court for appointment of adequate teachers
in the Government Primary Schools and Government Middle
Schools named in the writ petition. According to the petitioner,
there is a shortage of JBT Teachers in the said schools and
particularly after coming into force of the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act'), the student-teacher ratio in the schools in question
has drastically fallen in comparison to what has been prescribed
under the Act. Hence the writ petition seeks the directions earlier
noticed.
On the strength of several orders passed by the Court
Civil Writ Petition No. 7121 of 2010 2
from time to time, particularly the order dated 12.3.2012, the
Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government
of Haryana, School Education Department has filed an affidavit
in Court today giving the details of the number of JBT Teachers
required to be appointed in the State under the Act; the number
of sanctioned posts of JBT Teachers; the shortfall; the number of
Teachers actually working and the vacancies available. The
above figures which have been compiled in the form of a chart
mentioned in para-6 of the affidavit indicates that 1189 posts of
JBT Teachers are required to be sanctioned and 10414 posts out
of the sanctioned posts are vacant. Insofar as the additional
vacancies are concerned, in the affidavit filed it has been stated
that the said posts will be included in the Annual Plan 2012-13
for the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan and would be submitted to the
Government of India for its approval as the financial liability on
the said account is to be shared between the Central
Government and the State Government. In the affidavit filed, it
has further been stated that on receiving the necessary
approval from the Government of India, the posts will be filled
up by a process of fresh recruitment. Insofar as the vacant
posts (10414 numbers) are concerned, it has been stated that
recruitment against 544 posts of JBT Urdu Teachers is being
undertaken separately and a requisition has been sent to the
Haryana School Teachers Selection Board for filling up the
remaining 9870 posts. In para-10 of the affidavit, it has been
stated that on the basis of the discussions held with the
Haryana School Teachers Selection Board a tentative schedule
Civil Writ Petition No. 7121 of 2010 3
has been worked out for filling up 9870 posts. According to the
said schedule, commencing with the advertisement and ending
with the sending of recommendations to the Government, a
total of 322 days (tentatively) are required for completion of the
process by the Board. In the affidavit filed it has been further
stated that 1685 surplus Teachers have been identified in 1058
schools throughout the State and the process of deployment of
such Teachers is already under process.
The affidavit dated 19.3.2012 of the Financial
Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of
Haryana, School Education Department filed in Court today
indicates the roadmap that the State has drawn for itself for
filling up the required posts of JBT Teachers so as to conform to
the provisions of the Act. Reading the affidavit of the Principal
Secretary, the Court finds that the State is committed to initiate
and complete the process of creation of posts and filling up the
same (1189 numbers); the process of adjustment of 1685
surplus Teachers and also the process of appointment against
9870 vacant posts of JBT Teachers.
In view of the above, we do not think it would be
necessary for us to continue to monitor the actions of the State
any further. On the contrary, we deem it appropriate to close
the writ petition by directing the State of Haryana to initiate and
complete the necessary action in terms of the averments made
in the affidavit dated 19.3.2012 of the Financial Commissioner
and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, School
Education Department and to adhere to the various time
Civil Writ Petition No. 7121 of 2010 4
schedules mentioned in the said affidavit. We also make it clear
that no major departure from the schedule set out in the
affidavit or the plan of action contemplated therein will be made
by the State and any such departure will be viewed by this Court
as a violation of the present order.
The Public Interest Litigation stands closed in terms
of the above directions.
( RANJAN GOGOI )
CHIEF JUSTICE
March 20, 2012 ( MAHESH GROVER )
Kang JUDGE
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


RTI se apni Answer-Sheet dekh skte h-Dalip bisnoi

State Information Commission ne ye order diya tha ki koi bhi applicant RTI se apni Answer-Sheet dekh skta h, Mamla HC me gya,SIC k pks me faisla hua, HPSC order k khilaf SCourt chali gai, Aur ab sbse hairani wali bat suniye aur es SC order me pdiye ki khud SIC ki aur se mamle ki Pairvi k liye koi pes nahi hua jiska ntija ye hua ki HC Order pr SC ne tb tk k liye STAY de diya jb tk ki es Case ka Final Decision nahi ho jata, Baki ki baat aap khud hi smj gye honge. Agar ye case HPSC har jata h to Public Appointments me kya kuchh badlav aa skte h,aap jante ho. Kash koi Yuva ya Sangh es case ko SC me dumdar trike se lad ske kyoki es case se ITIHAS bnaya ja skta h,pura INDIA es mamle k Decision se benefit utha skega.

ITEM NO. 53 COURT NO.4 SECTION IVB

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13261/2011
(From the judgement and order dated 25/03/2011 in LPA No.579/2011
of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

ROHINI COURT DELHI'S ORDER RELATED TO JBT ,YEAR 2000


IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGEII
(P. C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI

CC No. 37/2010
CBI VsVidyaDhar etc.

24.3.2012

Present: Sh. I. D. Vaid, Ld. Special P. P. for CBI.
None for accused persons.

Application of applicant/accused Narain Singh Ruhil (A29) and application of applicant/accused DurgaDuttPradhan (A38) movedunder Section 319 CrPC for summoning the additional accusedpersons are dismissed vide separate orders dictated to stenographer.

Put up the matter for the purpose fixed on 4.4.2012.

Ld. Special Public Prosecutor submits that summons be alsoissued to PW64, whose cross examination remains deferred.I allow this request.

Issue summons to PW64 Sh. M. C. Joshi for9.4.2012.

Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has also moved an application under Section 311 CrPC praying that Inspector N. N. S. Asthana and Inspector R. K. Sangwan be summoned as witnesses. Let the

court case regarding jbt basic pay rs16290


CWP No. 3985 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 3985 of 2012
Date of Decision : March 02, 2012
Krishan Kumar and others
.... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners are praying for release of their salary on the
basic pay of Rs. 16,290/- whereas the same has been granted on
the basic pay of Rs. 13,500/- w.e.f. the date of their initial
appointment i.e. 02.09.2008.
It is contended by the petitioners that the salary of the
JBT Teachers, who were appointed along with the petitioners, is
being given on the basic pay of Rs. 16,290/- in all over the State of
Haryana as per the Haryana Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008
CWP No. 3985 of 2012 2
except the JBT Teachers in Jagadhri Block. Petitioners contend that
claiming the said benefit, they have submitted representations dated
24.01.2011, 09.05.2011 and 08.11.2011 but without any result.
Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners, at
this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Director,
Elementary Education, Haryana-respondent No. 3 to consider the
representation of the petitioners dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-7)
and decide the same within some specified time.
Without going into the merits of the case or commenting
thereon, the present petition is disposed of with directions to the
Director, Elementary Education, Haryana-respondent No. 3 to
consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated
08.11.2011 (Annexure P-7) within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken
be conveyed to the petitioners forthwith. In case the petitioners are
held entitled to the claim made by them through their representation,
the consequential benefits be released to them within a further period
of one month.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
March 02, 2012 JUDGE
pj

विकलांग कोटे के तहत आरक्षण की नीति पर रोक

चंडीगढ़, जासं : पंजाब एंव हरियाणा हाईकोर्ट ने एक महत्वपूर्ण फैसले में हरियाणा सरकार द्वारा विकलांग कोटे के तहत आरक्षण देने के लिए अपनाई गई नीति पर रोक लगा दी है। हाईकोर्ट ने यह आदेश दिनेश कुमार भाटिया नामक व्यक्ति की याचिका पर सुनवाई करते हुए जारी किया। याचिकाकर्ता ने वकील इंद्रपाल गोयत के माध्यम से दायर याचिका में आरोप लगाया था कि नौकरियों में विकलांगों को आरक्षण देने के लिए हरियाणा सरकार द्वारा अपनाया जा रहा पैमाना कानूनन गलत है। बहस के दौरान अदालत में बताया गया कि नियम के अनुसार किसी भी तरह का आरक्षण तीन श्रेणी में होता है पहला जनरल, दूसरा ओबीसी व तीसरा एससी व एसटी। इस मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट की नौ जजों की बेंच एक मामले में स्पष्ट भी कर चुकी है और इस संबंध में निर्णय भी दे चुकी है। याचिका के वकील ने आरोप लगाया कि राज्य सरकार ने 14 अक्टूबर 1997 को नियम के विपरीत जनरल, ओबीसी व एससी/एसटी वर्ग के अलावा एक अलग श्रेणी विकलांग को शामिल कर उसमें सीट आरक्षित करने का नियम शुरू कर दिया। सुप्रीम कोर्ट के निर्णय व कानून के अनुसार अगर किसी विकलांग को आरक्षण का लाभ देना है तो उसे उस कोटे में आरक्षण दिया जाएगा जिस वर्ग से वह संबंधित है।

अनुसूचित जाति/जनजाति उम्मीदवारों को दूसरे राज्यों में नहीं मिलेगा आरक्षण : न्यायालय

नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई (प.स.): दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने आज यह फैसला दिया कि एक राज्य के अनुसूचित जाति और अनुसूचित जनजाति के उम्मीदवार किसी दूसरे राज्य में आरक्षण का फायदा नहीं उठा सकते। मुख्य न्यायाधीश दीपक मिश्र और न्यायमूॢत संजीव खन्ना की पीठ ने दिल्ली नगर निगम (एम.सी.डी.) को दिए कैट (केंद्रीय प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरण) के निर्देश को रद्द करते हुए यह फैसला दिया। अपने फैसले में अदालत ने कहा कि अनुसूचित जाति और अनुसूचित जनजाति के वैसे उम्मीदवार जो राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र के निवासी हैं और जिनके पास जाति प्रमाणपत्र है, यहां की नौकरियों में आरक्षण का फायदा उठा सकते हैं।

court case copy- case dismissed B.Ed is not equivalant to JBT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 1046 of 1995 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 7, 2011
Puran Chand and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the short prayer made is that Note (ii) in Appendix ‘B’ of the Haryana
Primary Education (Group-C) District Cadre Service Rules, 1994
(for brevity, ‘the Rules’) may be declared ultra vires of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution because it permits the candidate with
higher qualification such as B.A., B.Sc. and B.Ed. to be considered
for appointment to the post of Junior Basic Trained Teachers. A consequential
prayer has also been made for quashing advertisement
dated 22.12.1994 (P-3), which stipulate in accordance with Note (ii)
that if adequate number of candidates possessing the qualification
of J.B.T. Teachers were not available then the posts could be filled
CWP No. 1046 of 1995 (O&M)
up from those who have qualification of B.A., B.Ed. or B.Sc. B.Ed.
The aforesaid clause reads as under:-
“2) xxx xxx xxx
Note:- i) xxx xxx xxx
ii) In case of non-availability of Junior Basic
Trained Teachers the candidates having
higher qualifications such as B.A. B.Ed. or
B.Sc. B.Ed. or its equivalent may be considered
for the posts of Junior Basic
Trained teachers but on selection such
persons shall have no right to claim the
benefit of any higher pay scales or salary
other than the pay scales of Junior Basic
Trained Teachers as the Government
may fix from time to time simply on the
basis of higher qualification. In case any
Basic Trained Teacher acquired higher
qualification including B.A. B.Ed. or B.Sc.
B.Ed. or its equivalent after selection or
joining the service he or she shall not be
allowed any higher pay scales or salary
simply on the basis of acquisition of such
qualification. The letter No. 5056-F.R.-II/
57/5600, dated 23rd July, 1957 issued by
the Finance Department of composite
State of Punjab shall have no effect
whatsoever.”
2
CWP No. 1046 of 1995 (O&M)
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners joined the
course of Diploma in Education (Two-Year Course), which is popularly
known as J.B.T. Course, in the Government run institutes. At
the time of filing of the writ petition in the year 1995, the petitioners
passed the Part-I examination of the said course and were pursuing
their final year of J.B.T. course, which was to be completed by the
end of May 1995.
3. The petitioners have claimed that earlier the conditions
of service of Junior Basic Trained Teachers in the Education Department,
Haryana were governed by the rules known as ‘the Punjab
Education Service Class-III (School Cadre) Rules, 1955. Under the
said rules, the prescribed qualification for the post of Junior Basic
Trained Teachers was as under:
“(i) Matric (Full) with English as one of the subjects.
(ii) Pass in two years J.B.T./Diploma in Education Training
Course from the Haryana Education Department
or equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana
Education Department.”
4. The petitioners have further claimed that by the end of
1994 Session of J.B.T. course, there were about 1200 J.B.T. trained
candidates available whereas there were more than 3900 posts of
Junior Basic Trained Teachers were lying vacant. The petitioners
further anticipated that after completion of their course, approximately
1700 more J.B.T. trained candidates were to be available.
5. On 16.9.1994, the State of Haryana under proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution framed ‘the Rules’. Rule 7 of ‘the Rules’
prescribes that no person would be appointed to any post in Service
unless he is in possession of qualifications and experience specified
3
CWP No. 1046 of 1995 (O&M)
in column 3 of Appendix B of the Rules in the case of direct recruitment
and those specified in column 4 of the said Appendix in the
case of appointment other than by direct recruitment. The relevant
entry of Appendix-B reads thus:
“ APPENDIX-B
Sr.
No.
Designation
of
posts
Academic qualification and
experience, if any, for direct
recruitment.
Academic
qualification
and experience,
if any,
for appointment
other
than by direct
recruitment
1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Junior
Basic
Trained
Teachers
(i) Matriculation from the
Board of School Education,
Haryana or its equivalent as
recognised by the Board of
School Education, Haryana,
and
xxx xxx
(ii) Passed two years Junior
Basic Training Course or
Diploma in Education Training
Course from Haryana
Education Department or
its equivalent recognised by
the Haryana Government.
(iii) Knowledge of Hindi
upto Matric standard.
Note-
(i) Preference will be given to candidates who
possess knowledge of Urdu upto Middle Standard
for such posts of Junior Basic Trained
Teachers who may be required to teach Urdu
or in Urdu.
(ii) In case of non-availability of Junior Basic
Trained Teachers the candidates having
4
CWP No. 1046 of 1995 (O&M)
higher qualifications such as B.A. or B.Sc.
B.Ed., may be considered for the posts of Junior
Basic Trained Teachers but on selection
such persons shall have no right to claim the
benefit of any higher pay scales or salary
other than the pay scales of Junior Basic
Trained Teachers as the Government may fix
from time to time simply on the basis of higher
qualifications. In case any basic Trained
Teacher requires higher qualification including
B.A. or B.Sc. B.Ed. after selection or joining the
service, he or she shall not be allowed any
higher pay scales or salary simply on the basis
of acquisition of such qualifications. The letter
No. 5056-FR-II/57/5600, dated 23rd July, 1957,
issued by the Finance Department of composite
State of Punjab shall have no effect whatsoever.
Note:Professional Training Diploma Certificate
awarded by any State Board or University
other than Haryana Education Department will
be recognised only if these Diploma or Certificates
have been recognised by the Haryana
Government.”
6. On 22.12.1994, the Subordinate Services Selection
Board, Haryana, issued an advertisement inviting applications for
filling up 5160 posts of J.B.T. Teachers (School Cadre) in the pay
5
CWP No. 1046 of 1995 (O&M)
scale of 1200-2040. The last date for receipt of application was
6.1.1995. As noticed in the opening para of the judgment it has
been stipulated in the said advertisement that that if adequate
number of candidates possessing the qualification of J.B.T. were not
available then the posts could be filled up from those who have
qualification of B.A., B.Ed. or B.Sc. B.Ed. (P-3).
7. In the backdrop of aforementioned factual position, the
petitioners have filed the instant petition with the grievance that by
virtue of Note (ii) in Appendix-B, against the post of Junior Basic
Trained Teachers, an attempt has been made to equate two unequals
as equal. However, it is an admitted fact that on the cut-off
date i.e. 6.1.1995, the petitioners were not having the minimum
academic qualification of passing of two years Junior Basic Training
Course or Diploma in Education Training Course from Haryana Education
Department or its equivalent recognised by the State of Haryana.
8. In the written statement filed by the respondents, a preliminary
objection has been raised that the petitioners did not have
locus standi to challenge the constitutional validity of Note (ii) because
they are yet to acquire the qualification of J.B.T. course in order
to become eligible for appointment. It is specifically pleaded
that the petitioners lacked requisite qualification on the cut-off date
i.e. 6.1.1995, which was the last date of receipt of application form.
They were still undergoing Junior Basic Training course. Therefore,
they cannot feel aggrieved and no relief could be given to them.
9. The case was called out yesterday i.e. 6.7.2011 and we
deferred the hearing for today. Again no one has put in appearance
on behalf of the petitioners. However, for the respondents Mr.
6
CWP No. 1046 of 1995 (O&M)
R.K.S. Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has appeared
and we have heard the learned State counsel.
10. It is well settled that if a person lacks qualification to be
eligible for appointment to a post then he is not permitted to challenge
the selection process because in such a situation no effective
relief could be granted to him. Accordingly, he would not have any
locus standi. In Jeet Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1979 (1)
SLR 604, the question fell for consideration of Hon’ble the Supreme
Court. In para 8 of the judgment it has been held that those petitioners
lacked locus standi to file a petition because they were not
qualified for promotion and they did not have any right for promotion
prior to the selected candidate nor they could succeed in their
claim. Similar principles have been echoed in the case of R.K. Jain
v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 119. In that case challenge was
made to the appointment of the President of CGAT. Initially he was
appointed as Judicial Member in 1982 and in 1991 he was given appointment
as Senior Vice-President of CGAT. Thereafter, in pursuance
of directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court he was appointed
as President of CGAT. His appointment was challenged on
the ground that as per the convention a sitting or retired Judge of
Hon’ble the Supreme Court is appointed as President of CGAT in
consultation with Chief Justice of India and the aforesaid convention
has been totally disregarded. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme
Court that a third party, which was not even a candidate, has
no locus standi to challenge the appointment of any person. Accordingly,
we are of the view that the writ petition cannot be maintained
by those who are yet to acquire the qualification of J.B.T. and
become eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Basic Training
7
CWP No. 1046 of 1995 (O&M)
teachers by the last date fixed for receipt of applications. Therefore,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
Even otherwise, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manjit Singh
v. State of Punjab and others (C.W.P. No. 451 of 2008, decided on
5.2.2010) has now taken the view that higher qualification of B.A.
B.Sc. or B.Ed. for appointment to the post of Junior Basic Training
Teachers is no bar (C.f. Full Bench judgment in the case of Som Dutt
v. State of Punjab, 1983 (3) SLR 141). It is further appropriate to
mention that vide notification dated 28.2.2003, ‘the Rules’ have
been amended and Note (ii) from Appendix ‘B’ has been deleted.
11. For all the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails
and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(GURDEV SINGH)
July 7, 2011 JUDGE
PKapoor
8

गेस्ट टीचरों को हटाने पर हाईकोर्ट ने लगाई रोक

चंडीगढ़ : हाईकोर्ट ने एक साथ कई याचिकाओं पर सुनवाई करते हुए हरियाणा में गेस्ट टीचरों कोहटाने पर रोक लगाने का आदेश जारी करते हुए याचिका को एडमिट करने का फैसला सुनाया है। हाईकोर्ट ने यह फैसला उन याचिकाओं पर जारी किया, जिसमें सरकार ने उन अतिथि अध्यापकों की सेवा समाप्त करने का फैसला लिया था, जो नियम के अनुसार योग्यता पूरी नहीं करते या जिनके विषय कंबीनेशन सही नहीं हैं।
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

एसएस बोर्ड सचिव को हाईकोर्ट का नोटिस

पंजाब एवं हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने एसएस बोर्ड द्वारा ग्राम सचिव पदों के लिए शार्ट लिस्ट जारी करने पर नोटिस जारी करते हुए 21 अक्तूबर तक जवाब देने को कहा है। याची ने याचिका दायर करते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा सितंबर 2009 में दिए गए फैसले को आधार बनाया था। गौरतलब है कि एसएस बोर्ड ने जुलाई 2007 में ग्राम सचिव के 400 पदों के लिए आवेदन आमंत्रित किए थे। इसके लिए बारहवीं, कम्प्यूटर की जानकारी तथा दसवीं तक हिंदी या संस्कृत आवश्यक विषय के रूप में निर्धारित की गई थी। इसके बाद बोर्ड ने जुलाई 2010 में पदों की संख्या को बढ़ाकर 870 कर दिया था। स्टाफ सलेक्शन बोर्ड द्वारा 2008 में जारी विज्ञापन के दौरान भिवानी के धारवान बास निवासी राजेश कुमार तथा झज्जर के साहलावास निवासी कर्मबीर सिंह ने भी आवेदन किया था। आवेदकों की संख्या को कम करते हुए बोर्ड ने अप्रैल 2011 में शार्ट लिस्ट जारी की। इसके लिए बोर्ड ने बारहवीं के पास प्रतिशत अंक को 0.58 से गुणा करने के कम से कम 41 प्रशित अंक निर्धारित किए गए। एडवोकेट जगबीर मलिक ने दोनों की तरफ से इस मामले में 31 मई को हाई कोर्ट में याचिका दायर की। सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा सितंबर 2003 में मनजीत बनाम स्टेट पंजाब के मामले को आधार बनाया। 6 जुलाई को सुनवाई के बाद न्यायाधीश रणजीत सिंह ने एसएस बोर्ड के सचिव को नोटिस जारी करते हुए 21 अक्तूबर 2011 तक जवाब देने को कहा।

See Also

Education News Haryana topic wise detail.