http://www.schooleducationharyana.gov.in/downloads_pdf/daily_orders/Promotion_24072013.pdfwww.teacherharyana.blogspot.com (Recruitment , vacancy , job , news)
Showing posts with label court desion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court desion. 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 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
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
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH
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
निजी स्कूलों में फीस बढ़ाने पर कोर्ट की रोक
चंडीगढ़, जागरण संवाददाता : पंजाब एवं हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने मंगलवार को एक महत्वपूर्ण आदेश जारी करते हुए निजी स्कूलों में फीस वृद्धि पर रोक लगा दी। जस्टिस एसके मित्तल की खंडपीठ ने इस संबंध में दायर तीन याचिकाओं पर सुनवाई करते हुए यह फैसला सुनाया है। सभी स्कूलों को फीस वृद्धि करने से पहले अपने संबंधित बोर्ड से मंजूरी लेनी होगी। कोर्ट ने सीबीएसई, आइसीएससी एवं पंजाब स्कूल शिक्षा बोर्ड से जवाब-तलब किया है कि वह बताएं कि उनसे संबद्ध सभी स्कूलों में क्या आर्थिक रूप से पिछड़े 25 प्रतिशत बच्चों को दाखिला मिल रहा है? साथ ही कोर्ट ने सभी स्कूलों को पिछले 5 वर्ष के लाभ और नुकसान की स्टेटमेंट संबंधित बोर्ड में जमा कराने का निर्देश दिया है। अदालत ने सभी बोर्डो को यह निर्देश भी दिया है कि वे तय करें कि स्कूलों में एनसीईआरटी द्वारा निर्धारित पुस्तकों के सिवाय कोई अन्य पुस्तक तो नहीं पढ़ाई जा रही। तीन याचिकाओं में से एक याचिका मलेरकोटला के प्रणव गोयल द्वारा दायर की गई है।
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)