Sudesh Rani v. Vinay Kumar And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 03.03.2025 Sudesh Rani

...Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Vinay Kumar and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Tejpal Singh Dhull, Advocates for the petitioner. Ravi Pratap Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.

*** HARKESH MANUJA , J.

(Oral) 1.

Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon a communication dated 03.03.2025 to submit that in terms of Writ Court order dated 20.01.2025, name of the petitioner has been recommended for the post of TGT Sanskrit under rest of Haryana category and she shall be made to join within four weeks from today.

2.

A perusal of order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Writ Court shows that the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner within four weeks of receipt of certified copy of the order. As per contents of para No. 4 of the present petition, certified copy of the order dated 20.01.2025 was served upon respondents on 24.01.2025 vide diary No. 430 and this fact was never disputed/denied by the respondents through filing of any counter affidavit to that effect.

3.

Under such circumstances, the respondents having failed to comply with the specific directions issued by the Writ Court regarding appointment of petitioner within four weeks of receipt of certified copy of the order have made themselves liable to make payment of Rs.50,000/- towards cost. Relevant paragraph Nos. 3 to 5 of the Writ Court order dated 20.01.2025 are reproduced as under :- "3. In view thereof, the Commission is directed to recommend the petitioners, who shall be appointed by the Department as TGTs in their respective categories as per merit, subject to their fulfilling the requisite conditions. The appointment shall be with all notional service benefits from the date other selected candidates pursuant to the advertisement in question have been appointed. The direction shall be carried out by the respondents within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

4. Disposed of.

5. In case the directions are not complied with within the stipulated period, each of the petitioners shall be entitled to costs of 50,000 to be paid by the defaulting officer ₹ concerned."

4.

Further more, even as on today, the respondents are asking for four weeks time to let the petitioner join. Under such compelling circumstances, wherein the respondents have failed to honour their undertaking about compliance of Court order within four weeks nor even they are ready to do the needful as on today, have made themselves liable to make payment of Rs.50,000/- towards costs. Accordingly, the cost amount be deposited by the respondents with the petitioner in two weeks which shall be recovered by the office within four weeks thereafter from official

concerned who defaulted, particularly when no power vests with this Court to alter or waive off the conditional cost imposed by the Writ Court. 5.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

6.

Rule stands discharged.

(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 03.03.2025 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No