C.W.P No.17219 Of 2007 vs Mr.Harish Rathee on 5 March, 2009

C.W.P No.17219 of 2007                                    ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                        Date of decision : March 05, 2009


1.     C.W.P No.17219 of 2007

       Virender Redhu and others      vs State of Haryana and others.

2.     C.W.P No.3002 of 2009

       Angrej Singh and others vs State of Haryana and another

                                ***

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

***

Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parveen.K Rohila, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana
for the respondents.

***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.17219 of 2007 and 3002

of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

The petitioners are claiming consideration for promotion to the

posts of Math/Science Masters.

Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners were

recruited by a process which is now under investigation by the C.B.I. He

further states that the respondents would have no objection to consider the

case of the petitioners if there had been no controversy with respect of their

appointments.

C.W.P No.17219 of 2007 ::2::

In the circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of with a

direction to the respondents that in case ultimately it is held that the original

appointments of the petitioners as JBT Teachers was not tainted, the

respondents will consider their case/s from the due date within three months

from the date of finalisation as mentioned above.

Counsel for the respondents states that as of now no promotion

of any batch junior to the petitioners has been made. In the circumstances,

it is directed that in case any promotions are made subsequently, the

promotion orders will contain a stipulation that the said promotions would

be subject to the rights of the petitioners. It is further clarified that the claim

of the petitioners for consequential benefits, if any person from a batch

junior to them is promoted would be considered from the said date.

                                            ( AJAY TEWARI             )
March      05, 2009.                             JUDGE
`kk'