Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjeet Kaur And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046961-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:046961-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(115) LPA-1310-2023
Decided on : 08.04.2024
Paramjeet Kaur & another
......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.N.K.Ganga, Advocate for the appellant (s).
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
1. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment passed by
the Learned Single Judge in CWP-15933-2023 which was dismissed on
26.07.2023 along with another petition bearing CWP-14681-2023 titled
Neelam Rani Vs. State of Haryana & others.
2. The relief sought in the writ petition was for quashing of the order
date 01.07.2023 (Annexure P-11) whereby the list of candidates had been
forwarded to the District Elementary Education Officers by the Director,
Elementary Education, Haryana regarding appointment in the second waiting
list to the post of P.R.T. before advertisement no.02/2012.
3. The Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ
petitioners were not amongst the wait-list candidates or selected candidates for
the post of Primary Teachers pursuant to the said advertisement and noticed
that the litigation had come to an end as the Supreme Court had put a quietus
to the same since it was decade old litigation. Reliance was placed upon the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046961-DB
judgment passed in SLP (Civil) No(s) 25269/2022 titled Vikas Kumar &
others Vs. The State of Haryana & others, decided on 13.09.2022 (Annexure
P-10) to come to the conclusion that the argument which had been raised in
sum and substance would mean interpreting the directions issued by the
Supreme Court which exercise could not be done as it would amount to
reopening the selection which would not be permissible. Resultantly, the
petitioners were given liberty to take recourse to the remedies available in
accordance with law.
4. We also had dismissed LPA-308-2023 titled Anoopam Sharma &
others Vs. State of Haryana & others, on 19.03.2024 in similar circumstances.
Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"The said selection has been subject matter of consideration
before two Division Benches and eventually it has culminated in the
final order passed by the Apex Court. The first litigation in CWP
No.346 of 2013 'Antim Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and others'
was decided on 29.04.2015 (Annexure P-4) and other connected cases,
wherein the issue was that the candidates who had not taken the test
before the cut-off-date whether they could be considered eligible. The
second round of litigation had been initiated on account of the
concession given by the learned Advocate General by treating them as
eligible. Resultantly, on account of the interim orders passed in the
second round, the State Government had juggled the list of candidates,
whereby even candidates who had not passed the test by the cut-off-
date came to the zone of consideration. Resultantly, in LPA No.912 of
2016 'Paramjeet Kaur and another Vs. State of Haryana and
others', the matter was decided on 20.07.2022 by a Bench headed by
one of us G.S. Sandhawalia, J. The matter was then taken to the Apex
Court in SLP No.25269 of 2022 'Vikas Kumar and others Vs. State
of Haryana and others' wherein the State Government had again
given a concession, as the State was willing to accommodate all the
three categories of candidates. Resultantly, certain directions had been
issued and eventually, the Apex Court vide order dated 13.09.2022 had
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046961-DB
held that 2012 selection will stand closed with the arrangement which
had been directed by the Apex Court. Relevant portion of the said
order reads as under:-
"(i) The total number of advertised posts i.e. 9870 to be filled
up first from the selected candidates declared in the result dated
14.08.2014.
(ii) In the event, the selected candidates from the above
category do not join, then the remaining vacancies shall be
filled up from the list of waitlisted candidates declared along
with successful candidates on 14.08.2014.
(iii) After filling up of the 9870 vacancies as provided above,
the 2233 candidates who qualified the HTET after the cutoff
date, sometimes in June, 2013 will be appointed as per their
inter se merit enbloc below the above 9870 candidates.
(iv) In case, there still remain any waitlisted candidates from the
waitlisted list of 14.08.2014, who could not be accommodated
in the advertised posts of 9870, will be appointed enbloc as per
their merit below the 2233 candidates.
(v) The seniority will be as per their merit position in their
respective lists.
(vi) No dispute for seniority would be entertained of any
candidate inter se different lists.
(vii) No claim for seniority or for any arrears would be
entertained for any period not worked by the candidates of any
of the above lists.
(viii) Salary would be paid for the period, for which such
candidates have actually worked but not paid salary after due
verification of their working both from the records and
physically.
(ix) The 2012 selections will stand closed with the above
arrangement.
(x) Exercising our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution,
we increase the number of advertised posts beyond 9870 to
accommodate the candidates as directed above and no more.
(xi) All the appeals are disposed of as directed above.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046961-DB
(xii) The impugned judgment shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent."
4. A perusal of the abovesaid directions would go on to show that
the only concession which was granted by the Apex Court was
regarding the candidates who had qualified the HTET after the cut-off-
date sometimes in June, 2013."
5. The factum of the appellants not being in the initial wait-list or in
the selection list who were adjusted in pursuance of the orders of this Court is
apparent. In such circumstances, once the appellants having never come
within the zone of consideration, can have no cause of action for the selection
which had been initiated in the year 2012. They also cannot have any grouse
against the inter se departmental communication whereby persons who were
entitled to or held to be considered for appointment by the Apex Court were
being given postings.
6. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, finding no merit in
the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
08.04.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
