CWP No.13735 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13735 of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.08.2010 **** DAVIET Employees Welfare Association (Regd.) . . . . Petitioner VS. DAV College Management Committee and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. RN Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner claims itself to be an Employees’ Welfare Association of the DAV Institute of Engineering and Technology (DAVIET) at Jalandhar. The petitioner’s grievance is that the DAV Management has issued the impugned advertisement dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure P5) overlooking the norms approved by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) in terms whereof, the post of Lecturer no longer exists and has already been re- designated as ‘Assistant Professor’, the post of CWP No.13735 of 2010.doc - 2 – ‘Assistant Professor’ has also been re-designated as ‘Associate Professor’. It is alleged that the advertisement has still been issued with old nomenclature of the posts so as to recruit ineligible persons who do not possess the qualification as mandatorily prescribed for the re-designated posts. It is also averred that the petitioner-Association has represented to the concerned authority, namely, the AICTE as well as the Punjab Technical University but their intervention in the matter is still awaited. (2). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, I am of the considered view that no interference with the on-going selection process initiated vide the impugned advertisement or any other order is called for by this Court at this stage except to direct AICTE - respondent No.3 to take immediate cognizance of the representation(s) received from the petitioner-Association (Annexure P6 to P8 & P10) and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with the law as early as possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If any follow up action would be needed at the hands of respondent No.3, the same shall also be taken within the said period. CWP No.13735 of 2010.doc - 3 – (3). Similarly, respondent No.4 shall also take notice of the representation received from the petitioner- Association and redress their grievance by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within the stipulated period. (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 04.08.2010 vishal shonkar