Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Rajeev Kumar on 1 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042623-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:042623-DB
(108) LPA-121-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 01.04.2024
State of Haryana and another ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Rajeev Kumar ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana &
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-286-LPA-2024
Application for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the
appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit of the official. Delay of 14 days in filing the appeal
is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA-121-2024 (O&M)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of
the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP-558-2015
'Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another', whereby the writ
petition filed by the respondent was allowed on 03.10.2023. The Learned
Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed that the writ
petitioner be allowed to join to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)
pursuant to offer of appointment dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure P-7) within
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042623-DB
LPA-121-2024 (O&M)
four weeks from receiving of a certified copy of the order. All
consequential benefits including seniority in the order of merit determined
by the Commission, except arrears of salary were also granted.
2. Counsel for the State has pointed out that in paragraph No.6,
the Learned Single Judge has recorded the factum of the enrolment of the
writ petitioner as a student of B.Tech in Civil Engineering (Lateral Entry)
in the academic session 2004-2005 and, thus, gave the benefit of the
judgment of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro, (2018) 1 SCC 468. Thus, the reasoning
of the Learned Single Judge was that the degree stood restored in view of
the subsequent judgment passed in Ashok Kumar and others Vs.
Depinder Singh Dhesi and others, (2019) 8 SCC 280.
3. On 15.01.2024, the Coordinate Bench had directed the
respondent to file an affidavit stating that whether he was enrolled in the
year 2004-2005. Vide CM-796-LPA-2024, the affidavit was taken on
record. A perusal of the said affidavit would go on to show that certificate
dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure A-1) issued by the Directorate of Distance
Education, Janardhan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth had been placed
on record, in support of the fact that the writ petitioner was enrolled in the
academic session 2004-2005 and was a bonafide student of B.Tech in
Civil Engineering (Lateral Entry) and was entitled for the benefit of the
judgment of the Apex Court and he has qualified the AICTE-UGC Special
Examination conducted during June, 03 to 06, 2018.
4. Counsel for the State has also pointed out that before the
Learned Single Judge Annexure P-8 had been placed on record, since the
writ petition had been filed in the year 2015 and the said enrolment
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042623-DB
LPA-121-2024 (O&M)
number was of 2005. It is, accordingly, contended that if that was so, the
benefit could not have been granted and, therefore, reliance upon
Annexure A-1 without any specific pleading and without giving the State
an opportunity to rebut the said document could not have been avoided by
the writ petitioner. It is, thus, submitted that due procedure has not been
followed as the writ petition was never amended and the said document
had never been placed on record. It is, accordingly, submitted that the
Learned Single Judge should have given the opportunity to the State to
meet the oral argument, which had been raised at the time of the decision
of the case, since the judgment was dictated in open Court.
5. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion
that there is merit in this aspect. The counsel for the writ
petitioner/respondent is not in a position to deny the fact that the writ
petition was not based on the document Annexure A-1, which itself was
issued on 29.07.2022 much after filing of the writ petition. The written
statement was also dated 01.12.2017. Therefore, an opportunity should be
granted to the State to rebut the said document, since reliance had been
placed on the same on the basis of the observations of the Apex Court,
which itself talk about the benefit to be given to the students who were
admitted during the academic session 2001 to 2005.
6. Resultantly, we allow the present letters patent appeal by
setting aside the judgment dated 03.10.2023 and matter is remanded to the
Learned Single Judge for a fresh decision. It is open to the writ petitioner
to amend his writ petition to bring the necessary documents on record and
amend his pleadings and give a chance to the State to rebut the same.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042623-DB
LPA-121-2024 (O&M)
7. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Learned
Single Judge on 30.04.2024.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
01.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : √Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes √No
4 of 4
