Author Topic: 26.8.2011 CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)  (Read 3412 times)

<--Jack-->

  • Editor-in-Chief
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 10374
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Real Info
    • Email
26.8.2011 CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)
« on: September 09, 2011, 10:41:10 PM »


CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)

IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 26.8.2011
CM No. 5408 of 2011 in
CWP No. 12275 of 2000

Neelam Rani ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab & ors ....Respondents
CORAM: HON' '  'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This is an application for clarification of the order passed by
this Court dated 8.1.2010 so as to permit the State to continue with the
process of issuance of appointment letters in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 5.9.2007.
It is pointed out that an advertisement was published on
5.9.2007 advertising 9998 posts of ETT Teachers. Such advertisement
became subject matter of challenge before this Court and in terms of
liberty granted 8865 teachers were appointed, whereas the remaining
1133 posts were ordered not to be filled up without the approval of this
Court, vide order dated 28.5.2008. Writ Petition No. 6801 of 2008 was
decided on 20.4.2010 and the challenge to grant of five marks for rural
CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (2)
areas school was declined. After the said decision, 467 candidates have
been given appointment letters. It is contended that such 467 candidates
were selected prior to the order passed by this Court on 8.1.2010,
whereby the reservation of posts for the males have been found to be not
sustainable.
It is contended that this Court on 8.1.2010 has set aside the
quota for the male teachers, but has held that the judgment shall
operate prospectively. It is contended that since the selections were made
prior to the orders passed by this Court on 8.1.2010, therefore, the order
passed by this Court requires to be modified so as to allow the State to
appoint 467 candidates.
We do not find that the order passed by this Court requires
any clarification. While deciding the legality of the Punjab State
Education Class-III (Schools Cadre) Services Rules, 1978 (for short the
'Rules') and the earlier Rules, it was held to the following effect: -
''It is since the year 1955, Rules prescribe separate cadre of
men and women. Such cadres have been found to be not
tenable. Therefore, principles laid down in this judgment
shall be applied prospectively. All the previous
appointments shall not be reopened or can be said to be
invalid on the basis of law declared by this judgment but all
future appointments shall be made on the basis of merit in
the manner discussed above.
The petitioners who were initially appointed on merit will be
adjusted in the cadre from the date of initial appointment
and shall be entitled to pay and allowances and seniority
from the dates of their initial appointment with any break
in service as leave of kind due.''
This Court has found the Rules itself as illegal. But to avoid
complications in the implementation of such judgment with the
retrospective effect, the judgment was given prospective effect. The order
is clear and categorical that all future appointments are to be made on
the basis of merit. Therefore, after the order dated 8.1.2010, all
CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (3)
appointments shall be made only in terms of the directions given by this
Court. New rights cannot be created on the basis of the selection process
initiated earlier. Though, the selection process was initiated prior to the
order passed by this Court, but the fact remains that appointments are
being made after the order passed by this Court on 8.1.2010.
We find that the application is fully misconceived and the
same is dismissed accordingly.

[HEMANT GUPTA]
JUDGE
26.8. 2011 (JORA SINGH)
Preeti/ds JUDGE

supernatural

  • Real Member
  • **
  • Offline
  • Posts: 157
    • View Profile
Re: 26.8.2011 CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2011, 10:42:59 PM »
vry vry tension, Jack ji pl tell in simple language

<--Jack-->

  • Editor-in-Chief
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 10374
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Real Info
    • Email
Re: 26.8.2011 CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2011, 10:44:34 PM »
We find that the application is fully misconceived and the
same is dismissed accordingly.

<--Jack-->

  • Editor-in-Chief
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 10374
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Real Info
    • Email
Re: 26.8.2011 CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2011, 10:47:04 PM »
All the previous
appointments shall not be reopened or can be said to be
invalid on the basis of law declared by this judgment but all
future appointments shall be made on the basis of merit in
the manner discussed above.

GURSHARAN NATT

  • Real Savvy
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1995
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 26.8.2011 CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2011, 06:51:23 AM »
sir august 2010 to bad join karn valea lai koi tension vali gal hai ja nhi?

<--Jack-->

  • Editor-in-Chief
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 10374
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Real Info
    • Email
Re: 26.8.2011 CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2011, 08:23:43 AM »
No tension for TF /ESP................

<--Jack-->

  • Editor-in-Chief
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 10374
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Real Info
    • Email
Re: 26.8.2011 CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2011, 08:24:04 AM »
call Bhardwaj
9501002950

Gaurav Rathore

  • News Editor
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5335
  • Gender: Male
  • Australian Munda
    • View Profile
Re: The Judgments/Orders Dated: 5408 of 2011 in CWP--12275/2000 26.08.2011
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2011, 11:31:56 AM »


CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (1)

IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 26.8.2011
CM No. 5408 of 2011 in
CWP No. 12275 of 2000

Neelam Rani ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab & ors ....Respondents
CORAM: HON' '  'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This is an application for clarification of the order passed by
this Court dated 8.1.2010 so as to permit the State to continue with the
process of issuance of appointment letters in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 5.9.2007.
It is pointed out that an advertisement was published on
5.9.2007 advertising 9998 posts of ETT Teachers. Such advertisement
became subject matter of challenge before this Court and in terms of
liberty granted 8865 teachers were appointed, whereas the remaining
1133 posts were ordered not to be filled up without the approval of this
Court, vide order dated 28.5.2008. Writ Petition No. 6801 of 2008 was
decided on 20.4.2010 and the challenge to grant of five marks for rural
CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (2)
areas school was declined. After the said decision, 467 candidates have
been given appointment letters. It is contended that such 467 candidates
were selected prior to the order passed by this Court on 8.1.2010,
whereby the reservation of posts for the males have been found to be not
sustainable.
It is contended that this Court on 8.1.2010 has set aside the
quota for the male teachers, but has held that the judgment shall
operate prospectively. It is contended that since the selections were made
prior to the orders passed by this Court on 8.1.2010, therefore, the order
passed by this Court requires to be modified so as to allow the State to
appoint 467 candidates.
We do not find that the order passed by this Court requires
any clarification. While deciding the legality of the Punjab State
Education Class-III (Schools Cadre) Services Rules, 1978 (for short the
'Rules') and the earlier Rules, it was held to the following effect: -
''It is since the year 1955, Rules prescribe separate cadre of
men and women. Such cadres have been found to be not
tenable. Therefore, principles laid down in this judgment
shall be applied prospectively. All the previous
appointments shall not be reopened or can be said to be
invalid on the basis of law declared by this judgment but all
future appointments shall be made on the basis of merit in
the manner discussed above.
The petitioners who were initially appointed on merit will be
adjusted in the cadre from the date of initial appointment
and shall be entitled to pay and allowances and seniority
from the dates of their initial appointment with any break
in service as leave of kind due.''
This Court has found the Rules itself as illegal. But to avoid
complications in the implementation of such judgment with the
retrospective effect, the judgment was given prospective effect. The order
is clear and categorical that all future appointments are to be made on
the basis of merit. Therefore, after the order dated 8.1.2010, all
CM No. 5408 of 2011 in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 (3)
appointments shall be made only in terms of the directions given by this
Court. New rights cannot be created on the basis of the selection process
initiated earlier. Though, the selection process was initiated prior to the
order passed by this Court, but the fact remains that appointments are
being made after the order passed by this Court on 8.1.2010.
We find that the application is fully misconceived and the
same is dismissed accordingly.

[HEMANT GUPTA]
JUDGE
26.8. 2011 (JORA SINGH)
Preeti/ds JUDGE

GURSHARAN NATT

  • Real Savvy
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1995
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Judgments/Orders Dated: 5408 of 2011 in CWP--12275/2000 26.08.2011
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2011, 01:05:25 PM »
sir jehde august 2010 to bad aaye ne ohna lai problem hai ja nhi plz daso ? need udhi pai hai sadi ta

GURSHARAN NATT

  • Real Savvy
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1995
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Judgments/Orders Dated: 5408 of 2011 in CWP--12275/2000 26.08.2011
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2011, 02:13:05 PM »
ok sir ji

 

GoogleTagged



D reservation of posts in ETT Recruitment(4500 & 2000)

Started by Gaurav Rathore

Replies: 0
Views: 405
Last post March 20, 2017, 07:12:21 PM
by Gaurav Rathore
Press Note Regarding LAB ATTENDANT EXAM on 28-09-2011

Started by sheemar

Replies: 2
Views: 1871
Last post September 24, 2011, 08:03:10 PM
by dineshrpr
WHY NO SENIORITY NUMBER TO 01-04-2011 REGULAR ESP

Started by RAAJIV MAHAJAN

Replies: 1
Views: 773
Last post November 09, 2015, 11:50:00 AM
by sukhbir
Regarding sen. list of lecturers 07.03 2011

Started by neeru

Replies: 1
Views: 744
Last post September 12, 2015, 09:49:31 PM
by Baljit NABHA