Shalender Kumar And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others
CWP No.24544 of 2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:139534
!"#"$%
&% '(& ) *
+++ *, (-% ! "# "$ %$%& ' ()(* + !,-, %
. %$"/ !+012 ! % %$"% ! +++ !3 3 /"&4%$%%
5+!+ ! + !! "% "$ %$%&' ("$ ++3 "4 "$ %$%& 367 %%%))%$%& 8 ! Ashwani Kumar 2023.11.03 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.24544 of 2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:139534 !%$"/ 1 he relevant paragraph no.8 of the judgment is as follows:
8.
In view of this factual background, it is apparent that the petitioners, being 2017 Batch PRTs, were never allotted a district permanently, as they were appointed pursuant to interim orders by Court during pendency of the litigation impugning their selection process; besides, the appointments were made before final seniority positions of the batch could be determined. This is the reason condition no.14 was included in the letters of appointment stipulating that they were temporarily being allotted the district which was subject to change. After the litigation questioning the selection process came to an end in terms of order, dated 13.9.
2022, passed in Vikas Kumar case (supra), which upheld the selection and determined their seniority position finally, the respondents have undertaken this drive vide the impugned General Notice for permanent district allotment to 2017 Batch PRTs keeping in view their seniority positions and the options given. This could have been done only after the petitioners' selection was upheld which necessitated their participation in it too. Therefore, there is nothing illegal or irregular either about condition no.14 of appointment or the permanent district allotment drive, as it is being undertaken in the light of aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court as well as the affidavit submitted by the respondents before this Court in Sandeep Kumar case (supra).
&
.
)
,!
, *-
Aw 6 8 987 6 987 Ashwani Kumar 2023.11.03 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document