Syed Mohd Inam And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

2024:PHHC:023742-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Letters Patent Appeal No. 503 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.02.2024 Syed Mohd. Inam and others .....Appellants versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI, JUDGE Present :

Mr. Nazir Jamal, Advocate, for Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ****
 

  

  

  CM No. 1204-LPA-2024 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. 503 of 2024 The present appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2023 passed the learned Single Judge whereby the petitioners' claim for being considered in the seniority list of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) of Mewat cadre has been rejected.

2.

The learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.12.2023 has upheld the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-15) passed by the respondentauthorities by recording that from 05.04.2022 to 21.04.2022 various options have been given to all the Post Graduate Teachers to opt for either Mewat or rest of the Haryana cadre. The petitioners (appellants herein) chose not to opt for Mewat cadre which was the reason for rejection of their writ petition. RAVINDER KUMAR 2024.02.22 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2024:PHHC:023742-DB
 

   [2] 3.

The paper book would go on to show that opportunities had been given three times in November, 2017 to opt for Mewat Cadre and twice in December-2017 and the liberty had been given to the employees to opt for either of the two cadres i.e. Mewat and Gurugram districts and to raise objections, if any, regarding the tentative seniority list. In the absence of said opportunity being availed, the impugned order was passed. It is settled principle that the issues of seniority and promotion have to be addressed at the earliest by the employees and they cannot take it for granted as the rights of other employees are involved.

4.

In such circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity which would warrant interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 20.02.2024 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No RAVINDER KUMAR 2024.02.22 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document