Ramesh Kumar v. M K V Rama Rao And ANR

VINOD KUMAR 2016.08.27 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh COCP No.85 of 2016 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH COCP No.85 of 2016 Date of decision:23.08.2016 Ramesh Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

M.K.V. Rama Rao and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. S.K.Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents.

**** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

This petition is filed for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 24.04.2015 passed in CWP No.10634 of 2012. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner prayed for appointment as PTI Teacher. The said petition was allowed directing the respondents therein that if the vacancy, as reflected in Annexure P-5, still exists, then the petitioner be appointed in terms of the policy Annexure R3/1.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per his information, the post of PTI Teacher is available but the respondents have not given him appointment in violation of the order passed in the writ petition.

After notice, the respondents have filed their reply in which it is stated that no vacancy at present for the post of PTI Teacher is existing in the HPGCL. A detailed order was passed by the Under Secretary/Extt/ (NG) for the Chief Engineer/Admn., HPGCL, Panchkula on 07.01.2016, which is

VINOD KUMAR 2016.08.27 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh COCP No.85 of 2016 [ 2 ] ***** attached as Annexure R-1 with their reply.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances much-less the reasoning given in the order Annexure R-1, I do not find any reason to interfere in this petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

August 23, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No