← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25038/2023dismissed

Satpal v. State Of Haryana And Others

2023-11-06Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya2 pages

2023:PHHC:141063 CWP-25038-2023 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25038-2023 Date of Decision: 06.11.2023 Satpal

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Ms. Santosh Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner *** TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the speaking order dated 06.04.2023, Annexure P-13, whereby the petitioner's representation has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Edusat Chowkidar with respondent No.4 as per the policy/guidelines of the Government.

2.

As per facts apparent on record, the petitioner was engaged in service in Government Primary School, Amrala on 08.08.2007, and worked there till 29.07.2013. His services were discontinued/terminated when the said school was merged with Government Primary School Manak Tabra. He did not challenge the action that time and approached this Court after about ten years by filing the petition, CWP-25536-2022, against the termination which was disposed of by directing the respondents to decide his pending PAYAL 2023.11.08 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

2023:PHHC:141063 CWP-25038-2023 -2representation. Pursuant thereto, a decision has been taken to reject the representation by the impugned order, dated 06.04.2023, on the ground of delay. It was found that the petitioner has never approached the respondents for being engaged after merger of the schools on 29.07.2013, nor challenged the government decision to discontinue Edusat Chowkidar. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been approaching the concerned Headmaster after termination of his services in July, 2013 seeking re-engagement. She, however, is not in a position to point out anything on record which could substantiate the submissions. 4.

In view thereof, no exception can be taken to the impugned order which is well reasoned.

5.

Dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 06.11.2023 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2023.11.08 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment