Arti Chauhan And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

CWP No.19940 of 2019 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19940 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision.22.07.2019 Arti Chauhan and others

...Petitioners

Vs State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Dalbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) In pursuance of order passed by this Court connected matter i.e. CWP No.16931 of 2019, State has filed affidavit stating that total number of vacancies as per sanctioned posts in all government colleges in all subjects are 1559 and total number of eligible Extension Lecturers having qualification of NET or Ph.D are 1844 whereas ineligible Extension Lecturers are 265. Since process of admission for academic session 20192020 has commenced, which will be completed in August, 2019, I am of the view that grievance of petitioners having qualification of NET or Ph.D, at this stage, cannot be considered, in view of sanctioned strength as noticed in the affidavit. However, in case, workload increases, respondents may consider case of petitioners. At this stage, counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have made representations to respondents which are lying undecided.

In order to avoid impasse, I deem it appropriate to PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.07.31 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.19940 of 2019 (O&M) -2dispose of writ petition with direction to respondents to decide representation (Annexure P-7) of petitioners and pass a speaking order thereon after affording opportunity of hearing within a period of three months after admission process is over. In case no representation is given till date, liberty is granted to submit appropriate application/representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If decision is not taken by concerned respondent to whom representation is made as directed by this Court, it will entail into imposition of costs of `25,000/- to be paid to petitioners from salary of officer/official found responsible for not deciding representation. This condition of imposing costs is only to prevent petitioners to run from pillar to post and avail remedy of contempt in case of non-compliance of directions issued by this Court.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE July 22, 2019 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.07.31 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document