CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16675 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 21, 2009 Kamlesh Yadav .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16675 of 2008 (Kamlesh Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others), 18198 of 2008 (Jagat Singh Sindhu Vs. State of Haryana and others), 21204 of 2008 (Chander Lata Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8577 of 2009 (Sarita Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8603 of 2009 (Ram Phal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8604 of 2009 (Sushila Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8610 of 2009 (Kamlesh Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8612 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16675 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: of 2009 (Jaimal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8615 of 2009 (Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8623 of 2009 (Sushila Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8624 of 2009 (Suman Lata Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8628 of 2009 (Madan Pal Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8629 of 2009 (Ranbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8635 of 2009 (Savita Rathi Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8638 of 2009 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8640 of 2009 (Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8641 of 2009 (Dharamvir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8643 of 2009 (Dilbag Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8652 of 2009 (Mandrup Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8694 of 2009 (Jagdish Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8721 of 2009 (Harsh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8725 of 2009 (Sajjan Pal Malik Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8755 of 2009 (Dr.Bijender Singh Bhati Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8756 of 2009 (Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8765 of 2009 (Anita Monga Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8766 of 2009 (Suman Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8767 of 2009 (Mahender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8768 of 2009 (Balwinder Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8770 of 2009 (Anwar Husain Vs. State of Haryana and others), 9056 of 2009 (Yashpal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), 9138 of 2009 (Baljeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 9158 of 2009 (Jag Pal Singh Malik Vs. State of Haryana and others), 9451 of 2009 (Harish Kumar Vs. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16675 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: State of Haryana and others), and 10668 of 2009 (Sahab Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others). Through bunch of these writ petitions, a challenge has been raised by number of the petitioners primarily against the decision of the Government to adjust them at Industrial Training Institute or other such Institutes. Majority of the petitioners in these petitions were working either as Lecturers in Commercial Garments Designs and Making (CGDM) or as Lecturers in General Foundation Course (GFC). Their grievance appears to be that the Vocational Education Department, where they were earlier working, has been merged with Secondary Education Department. Normally, all the persons in Vocational Education Department should have accordingly been adjusted in the Education Department. Being aggrieved against their adjustments either in I.T.I or other Departments, the petitioners have filed these writ petition. Though reply in all the writ petitions has not been filed but the stand taken in those cases where reply has been filed, is almost identical as the issue involved is common. The respondent-Government has taken a stand that efforts have been made to adjust large number of employees keeping in view their qualifications. Whether such persons would have a right to seek adjustment in a particular Department, where, according to them, they can be better utilised, is a question, which strictly does not fall within the purview of the writ Court. The Government itself has to see whether a particular individual can be adjusted to utilise his expertise in various subjects. As per Mr.Rathee, this aspect has been taken into consideration. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16675 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that still they can be better utilised having regard to their qualifications if they are adjusted in places, especially in Secondary Education Department. Let the petitioners make a representation in this regard on all the grounds that are available to them, explaining it to the Government as to how they have a right to seek adjustment and as to how they can be better utilized at a particular place, as sought by them. The Government is well advised to consider the prayer and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the persons who are already working at various places may be considered for adjustment according to their qualifications and experience so that their service can be better utilized. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. July 21, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE