Pooja vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1910 P&H

                                                                        -1-
CWP- 27666-2019


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                            CWP- 27666-2019
                                            Date of decision: 30.01.2023

Pooja
                                                              ...Petitioner
                                     Versus


State of Haryana and others
                                                          .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:-    Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for
             Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana.

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of

directions to the respondents to adjust and appoint the petitioner as an

Extension Lecturer, Biotechnology, in respondent No.3-College, as number

of posts are still lying vacant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

worked in Govt. College for Girls (respondent No.3 herein) as an Extension

Lecturer, Biotechnology, in the Zoology Department, w.e.f. 01.08.2013 to

30.09.2013, and in the Botany Department, w.e.f. 01.08.2014 to

30.04.2015, as would decipher from the experience certificate Annexure P-

1, and that when some posts were lying vacant in the aforesaid

departments, the petitioner had requested respondent No.3-College,

allowing her to join as an Extension Lecturer, but to no avail. Learned

1 of 3

CWP- 27666-2019

counsel further contends that representation dated 05.08.2019 (Annexure P-

2) moved by the petitioner to respondent No.3 to consider her claim, is still

pending adjudication.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced a copy

of the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by respondent No.3, vide which the

representation made by the petitioner, had been dismissed for the reason

that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications i.e.

NET/Ph.D. at the time of his initial engagement as Extension Lecturer.

While passing the aforesaid order dated 07.11.2019, reliance to the

judgment rendered in Appeal (Civil) No.3595-3612 of 1999, titled as

'Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others', was also made.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner had worked in Govt. College for Girls

(respondent No.3) as an Extension Lecturer, Biotechnology, in the Zoology

Department, w.e.f. 01.08.2013 to 30.09.2013, and in the Botany

Department, w.e.f. 01.08.2014 to 30.04.2015. The petitioner made

representation dated 05.08.2019 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.3,

allowing her to join as an an Extension Lecturer. The said representation

was made after a period of four years and four months, but the same was

decided on 07.11.2019 for the reason that the petitioner did not possess the

requisite qualifications i.e. NET/Ph.D. at the time of his initial engagement

as an Extension Lecturer.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner did not possess the

requisite qualifications at the relevant time and her representation stands

decided after passing the speaking order on 07.11.2019, which is not part

2 of 3

CWP- 27666-2019

of the present petition, this Court does not find any merit in the present

petition.

Dismissed.

30.01.2023                                     (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar                                        JUDGE

                Whether reasoned/speaking?       Yes/No
                Whether reportable?              Yes/No




                                      3 of 3