C.W.P.No.23618 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.23618 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 19.12.2011 Neetu ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present : Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J Petitioner who joined as JBT Teacher has been terminated from service on the ground that the recruitment was made during the period when a ban on employment was in force. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to decision of this Court rendered in CWP no.4587 of 2011 titled as Naresh Kumar Vs. State ofHaryana and others decided on 5.8.2011 wherein this Court has observed as follows:- “In the light of above observations, all the petitioners are directed to appear before respective authorities, who have issued show cause notices with their response on 23.8.2011. The authority concerned shall transmit the cases to the Director on or before 30.8.2011, for appearance before the Director on 05.09.2011. If the Director faces any difficulty because of any commitment, he may authorize Joint Director/Deputy Director to hear the cases. All these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to C.W.P.No.23618 of 2011(O&M) 2 appear before the respective authorities which have issued show cause notice in each case. The said authorities, after obtaining replies of the respective petitioners to the show cause notice, shall forward the case to the Director, Education School, by fixing a date of hearing before the Director in consultation with the Director. The Director, School, thereafter, would afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass an order in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas that they may wish to urge against the proposed action. Needless to mention that the Director would keep in mind the observations made by Ist Division Bench in Tilak Raj's case (supra). The petitioners would be at liberty to impugn any order passed by the Director in accordance with law. If any of the petitioner makes a request for being represented by a counsel, the same shall be considered by the Director and appropriate order made thereon. The interim order passed in favour of the petitioners shall continue till the date of decision by the Director.” Having regard to the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of in terms of CWP no. 4587 of 2011 titled as Naresh Kumar Vs. State ofHaryana and others decided on 5.8.2011. It is expected that the respondents will decide the representation as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from today. December 19, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge