Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Budh Ram And Others

2023:PHHC:151896-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Letters Patent Appeal No. 341 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.11.2023 Haryana Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary .....Appellant versus Budh Ram and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY, JUDGE Present :

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant.

Mr. G.S.Gopera, Advocate and Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ****

  

  

 Appellant-Haryana Staff Selection Commission has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner (now respondent No.1) seeking a direction to the respondent for appointing him on the post of TGT (Physical Education) in BCA category against the Advertisement dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) has been allowed and the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has observed that the petitioner has acquired the HTET certificate subsequent to the date of advertisement and the process of interview was going on up to 30.08.2019 vide notice dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P-16) and since the petitioner had acquired the HTET certificate almost 11⁄2 years prior to 30.08.

2019 and had appeared for interview provisionally as per the interim directions issued by this Court, he has to be granted the benefit for being eligible for appointment on the post. It has been further observed by the learned Single Judge that as many as 46 posts of BCA category are lying vacant and therefore, in this backdrop the writ petition has been allowed.

RAVINDER KUMAR 2023.12.02 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:151896-DB
 

   [2] 2.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as the petitioner (now respondent No.1) had acquired the eligibility qualification when he appeared for interview. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the appellant-Commission is directed to appoint the petitioner (now respondent No.1) within a period of two weeks and thereafter inform this Court.

(RITU BAHRI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 29.11.2023 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√ RAVINDER KUMAR 2023.12.02 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.