← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/23456/2017disposed of

Bhateri Devi And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2023-02-06Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-23456-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.02.2023 Bhateri Devi and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

None for the petitioners.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the regularisation case(s) of the petitioners and to decide the legal notice dated 15.06.2017 (Annexure P-5), as the case is squarely covered under the order dated 10.07.2017 (Anneuxre P-6) passed in CWP-14131-2016 titled as 'Mukesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others'. Today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Vide order dated 17.10.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench, the petition qua petitioner No.1 has been disposed of. Learned State counsel points out that as per the affidavit dated 18.09.2022 filed by respondent No.3-District Education Officer, Hisar, in compliance of order passed in CWP-2009-2016 titled as 'Balwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others', the seniority list of all the ClassMANGAL SINGH 2023.02.08 05:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

 

     IV employees working on the different posts has been prepared on 30.06.2003 and the cases of eligible Class-IV employee concerning to vacant post has already been considered and as per the speaking order dated 27.05.2022, the services of petitioner No.1 has already been regularised vide order dated 12.05.2020, and the services of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 could not be regularised as they were appointed after the cutoff dated i.e. 30.06.2003 mentioned in the policy.

I have heard the learned State counsel and have also gone through the case file.

The service of petitioner No. 1 has already been regularised on 12.05.2020 and the services of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not regularised as they were appointed after the cutoff date 30.06.2003 mentioned in the policy. In view of the above, no further order is called for in the present petition.

Disposed of.

However, if petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2022, they may challenge the same, if so advised. (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 06.02.2023 Mangal Singh Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2023.02.08 05:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.