Sonia vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 471 P&H

CWP No.24529 of 2018 (O&M)                                          -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                            CWP No.24529 of 2018 (O&M)
                                            Date of Decision.11.01.2023

Sonia                                                           ...Petitioner
                                            Vs

State of Haryana and others                                   ...Respondents

2. CWP No. 24964 of 2018 (O&M)

Sonia ...Petitioner Vs

State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Present: Mr. Alakh Bhatt, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.24529 of 2018.

Mr. Vishva Nath Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.24964 of 2018.

Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

-.-

JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)

By this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of both

the writ petitions as facts are common.

The petitioners alleged that they are working in aided college

receiving financial aid from the Government of Haryana. They were

appointed against the post of Assistant Professor on a consolidated salary,

however, for the reasons best known to the Management, their services were

not continued. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petitions have been filed

seeking to challenge the action of respondent No.4 in not permitting the

petitioners to continue to discharge their services as Lecturers.

1 of 2

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 raises

a preliminary objection that the writ petitions itself per se are not

maintainable and that the petitioners would have to approach the

Educational Tribunal, as the law in this regard is well settled. He relies upon

the judgments rendered by this Court in Management of S.D. Model Senior

Secondary School and another Vs. District Judge-cum-Service Tribunal and

another 2014 (13) RCR (Civil) 328 and in CWP No.13245 of 2019 titled as

Dr. Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 20.05.2019

wherein notifications dated 28.05.2008 and 07.05.2013 were taken into

consideration and held that power had been given to District Judges in the

State of Haryana to hear appeals of employees of aided/unaided

Medical/Dental/Ayurvedic/Homeopathic/Educational Institution against the

decision of the Management.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused

pleadings of the case and the case laws as relied upon. Consequently, in

view of the settled proposition that a District Judge is competent to hear all

disputes against the management of aided/unaided institutes, the petitioners

herein are relegated to avail their remedy before the concerned Educational

Tribunal. Since the petitioners have been agitating their claim before this

Court, question of limitation would not be raised by the Management.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand

disposed of.

                                                  (JAISHREE THAKUR)
                                                       JUDGE
January 11, 2023
Pankaj*

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

                                    2 of 2