C.W.P. NO. 1107 OF 2007 * * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner * * * Notice of motion. The pleadings of the instant writ petition reveals that although the petitioner has been selected for appointment against the post of Physical Training Instructor, an offer of appointment has not been issued to him. On our asking, Mr.B.S.Chahal, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Chahal seeks an adjournment so as to enable him to obtain instructions in the matter. List on 12.2.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 9245 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: Mr.H.S.Sethi,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal,AAG Punjab * * * The petitioners have challenged the upper age limit for appointment against the post of Master/ETT Teacher etc. List again on 30.1.2007. To be shown in the urgent list. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 1133 OF 2007 * * * PRESENT: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. * * * The claim of the petitioner is for a permit to cut trees in terms of the Management Plan (Annexure P2). A perusal of the Management Plan specially para 9 thereof reveals that the permits can be issued up to 28/29 February. Notice of motion. On our asking, Mr.B.S.Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and seeks a short adjournment so as to enable him to file written statement. Prayer is allowed. Written statement, if any, be filed within three weeks from today, with a copy in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. List again on 15.2.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 933 OF 2007 * * * PRESENT: Mr.Deepak Agnihotri,Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment. He also states that he will move an application as and when he has obtained orders whereupon the proceedings in this case can continue. Adjourned sine die. Relist after proper application is made at the hands of the petitioner. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 1069-CAT OF 2007 * * * PRESENT: Mr.D.K.Bhatti,Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment so as to enable him to seek instructions whether or not the judgment relied upon by the Central Administrative Tribunal while disposing of original application No. 706/PB/2006 on 31.8.2006 (Annexure P10) has attained finality. Adjourned to 6.2.2007. Needful be done in the meantime. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya Company Appeal NO. 25 OF 2004 * * * PRESENT: None * * * Let this case be listed before a Bench which does not comprise one of us (J.S.Khehar, J.) on 30.1.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 14380 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Sirohi,Advocate for respondent No.3 * * * There is a written request for adjournment on behalf of the learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 1.5.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya CM No.11100 of 2006 in C.W.P. NO. 9456 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: Ms.Anu Chatrath Kapoor,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal, AAG Punjab for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 * * * None for respondent No.5 despite service. Respondent No.5 is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks an adjournment so as to enable him to file written statement. Prayer is allowed. One last opportunity is granted to the petitioner so as to file written statement within four weeks from today, with a copy in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. To come up for further consideration on 1.5.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 9318 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: Mr.R.K.Chopra,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal,AAG Punjab. * * * List along with CWP No. 9456 of 2006 on 1.5.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 11084 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: Ms.Anu Chatrath Kapoor,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal,AAG Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 * * * List along with CWP No. 9456 of 2006 on 1.5.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 11270 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapoor,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal,AAG Punjab for the respondents * * * List along with CWP No. 9456 of 2006 on 1.5.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 9483 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: Mr.R.K.Chopra,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal,AAG Punjab. * * * List along with CWP No. 9318 of 2006 on 1.5.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 14204 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT Mr.Vipin Mahajan,Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, AAG Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr.P.S.Khurana Advocate for respondent No.3 None for respondent Nos. 4 to 30 * * * None appears for respondent Nos. 4 to 30 despite sevice. Respondent Nos. 4 to 30 are accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks adjournment so as to enable them to file written statement. Prayer is allowed. Written statement, if any, be filed within three weeks from today, with a copy in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. List again on 15.2.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. W. P. No. 1091 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 23, 2007 Makhan Lal ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. Rakesh Garg,Advocate for the petitioner. - J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral) Having examined the matter in its totality, we are of the view that it would be improper for us to interfere with the impugned order of transfer dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P9) as there is not even an averment that the same has been passed for extraneous consideration or on account of some mala fides. It is not possible for us to accept that the vesting of the additional charge with respondent No.4-Sh.Harinder Singh Cheema is in any manner improper on account of the fact that the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema's wife is neither contesting the election from a constituency within the District Bathinda, nor does the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema belongs to District Bathinda. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. W. P. No. 1091 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 23, 2007 Makhan Lal ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. Rakesh Garg,Advocate for the petitioner. - J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral) Having examined the matter in totality, we are of the view that it would be improper for us to interfere in the impugned order of transfer dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P9) as there is not even an averment that the same has been passed for extraneous consideration or on account of some mala fide. It is not possible for us to accept that the vesting of the additional charge with respondent No.4-Sh.Harinder Singh Cheema is in any manner improper on account of the fact that the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema's wife is neither contesting the election from the constituency with the District Bathinda nor does the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema belongs to the District Bathinda. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. W. P. No. 1091 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 23, 2007 Makhan Lal ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. Rakesh Garg,Advocate for the petitioner. - J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral) Having examined the matter in totality, we are of the view that it would be improper for us to interfere in the impugned order of transfer dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P9) as there is not even an averment that the same has been passed for extraneous consideration or on account of some mala fide. It is not possible for us to accept that the vesting of the additional charge with respondent No.4-Sh.Harinder Singh Cheema is in any manner improper on account of the fact that the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema's wife is neither contesting the election from the constituency with the District Bathinda nor does the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema belongs to the District Bathinda. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. W. P. No. 1091 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 23, 2007 Makhan Lal ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. Rakesh Garg,Advocate for the petitioner. - J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral) Having examined the matter in totality, we are of the view that it would be improper for us to interfere in the impugned order of transfer dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P9) as there is not even an averment that the same has been passed for extraneous consideration or on account of some mala fide. It is not possible for us to accept that the vesting of the additional charge with respondent No.4-Sh.Harinder Singh Cheema is in any manner improper on account of the fact that the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema's wife is neither contesting the election from the constituency with the District Bathinda nor does the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema belongs to the District Bathinda. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. W. P. No. 1091 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 23, 2007 Makhan Lal ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. Rakesh Garg,Advocate for the petitioner. - J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral) Having examined the matter in totality, we are of the view that it would be improper for us to interfere in the impugned order of transfer dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P9) as there is not even an averment that the same has been passed for extraneous consideration or on account of some mala fide. It is not possible for us to accept that the vesting of the additional charge with respondent No.4-Sh.Harinder Singh Cheema is in any manner improper on account of the fact that the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema's wife is neither contesting the election from the constituency with the District Bathinda nor does the aforestated Sh.H.S.Cheema belongs to the District Bathinda. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. W. P. No. 1121 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 23, 2007 Sukhjeet Kaur ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand Present: Ms.Alka Chatrath,Advocate for the petitioner. - J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral) The petitioner applied in response to an advertisement dated 21.10.2006, for appointment against the post of Physical Training Instructor. In the process of selection, the petitioner was awarded 59.68% marks. Despite the aforesaid, the petitioner was not favoured with an offer of appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4- Lakhbir Kaur who was granted only 50.26% marks has been issued an offer of appointment. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a superior claim over respondent No.4, for appointment against the post of Physical Training Instructor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to two representations dated 22.11.2006 and 27.12.2006 (Annexures P7 and P9 respectively) whereby the petitioner requested the respondents to consider her claim for appointment against the post of Physical Training Instructor. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no decision has been taken on the aforesaid representations by the competent CWP No. 1121 of 2007 -2- authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be satisfied if the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 i.e. Director Public Instructions (SE) Punjab requiring him to take a final decision on the representation dated 27.12.2006 (Annexure P9). Notice of motion. On our asking, Mr.B.S.Chahal, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection to the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition by directing respondent No.2 in the Director Public Instructions (SE), Punjab, to take a final decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 27.12.2006 (Annexure P9) by passing a well reasoned speaking order, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is found entitled for appointment against the post of Physical Training Instructor, an offer will be made to her within one month thereafter. Disposed of accordingly. Order dasti on payment of usual charges. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 17687 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: Mr.R.K.Chopra,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal,AAG Punjab. * * * List along with CWP No. 9456 of 2006 on 1.5.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 11832 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: Mr.R.S.Bajaj,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal,AAG Punjab. * * * List along with CWP No. 9456 of 2006 on 1.5.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. W. P. No. 1129 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 23, 2007 Surinder Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. - J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral) The petitioner applied for a passport. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was declined by the Passport Officer, Jalandhar through a communication dated 23.6.2006 (Annexure P5). The aforesaid communication reveals that the petitioner could prefer an appeal to the Joint Secretary (CPV) and the Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House, New Delhi against the order dated 23.6.2006. In furtherance of the liberty granted to the petitioner, the petitioner, in fact, preferred an appeal against the order dated 23.6.2006. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the fact that the aforesaid appeal was filed by the petitioner on 19.7.2006, no decision has been taken thereon till date. Learned counsel CWP NO.1129 of 2007 -2- for the petitioner states, that the petitioner will be satisfied, if the instant writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Appellate Authority, to dispose of the aforesaid appeal within a specified period of time. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to take a final decision on the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 19.7.2006 (Annexure P6), by passing a well reasoned speaking order, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The instant order shall,however, be subject to the condition that the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 19.7.2006 has not already been disposed of. Disposed of accordingly. Order dasti on payment of usual costs. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. W. P. No. 1128 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 23, 2007 Maninder Paul Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. - J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral) The petitioner is a Lecturer. He has, however, been allowed to officiate as Principal. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition emerges from the order dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure P9). A perusal of Anneuxre P9 reveals that the petitioner has been required by the Deputy District Education Officer (Senior Secondary) Patiala to respond to a complaint against the petitioner. A copy of the aforesaid complaint dated 18.9.2006 has been placed on the record of this case (Annexure P10). Another complaint also dated 18.9.2006 has been placed on the record of the case (Annexure P11). The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not open to the Deputy District Education Officer CWP No. 1128 of 2007 -2- (Senior Secondary) Patiala to seek the explanation of the petitioner. In order to substantiate his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab dated 3.5.1967. A perusal of para (i) of the aforesaid instructions reveals that anonymous and pseudonymous complaint `should be' rejected and destroyed. Clause (ii) of the aforesaid policy instructions requires complaints be entertained only at the hands of an authority which is also authorized to punish an employee whose explanation is being sought. It is not possible for us to accept either of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having perused the complaints placed on the record of this case as Anneuxres P10 and P11, we are satisfied that the complaints contain allegations against the petitioner which are clear and unambiguous and can easily be verified from the records. In such circumstances, it would be in the interest of the petitioner himself to respond to the same, so as to clear all ambiguity about his antecedents. In so far as the second contention is concerned, since the explanation sought from the petitioner is not for inflicting any punishment upon him, but only for the purpose of gathering information, it is not possible for us to accept that the Deputy District Education Officer (Secondary Education) Patiala was not competent to seek his explanation. Finding himself in the aforesaid predictment, learned counsel for the petitioner then contended, that the complainant has close proximity with the Deputy District Education Officer (Secondary Education) Patiala, and that, the petitioner would not mind to submit his CWP No.1128 of 2007 -3- explanation to any other superior officer including the Circle Education Officer (while responding to the impugned order dated 28.11.2006 vide which the petitioner's explanation has been sought). Notice of motion. On our asking, Mr.B.S.Chahal, AAG Punjab accept notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection to the acceptance of the alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this behalf, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the explanation tendered by the petitioner in response to impugned order dated 28.11.2006, (Annexure P9) will be considered by an officer of the rank and status of Circle Education officer. The concession recorded at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondents fully satisfies the petitioner, who seeks two weeks time to enable him to file a reply to the communication dated 28.11.2006. Prayer is allowed. The petitioner is granted liberty to furnish his response to communication dated 28.11.2006, (Annexure P9) within two weeks from today. Disposed of accordingly. Order dasti on payment of usual charges. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.M. No. 1720-CII of 2007 in C.R. NO. 3349 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: Mr.Ajay Pal Singh,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.P.S.Mann, Advocate for the respondents * * * Civil Misc. application is allowed. Reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 is taken on record. (M.M.Aggarwal) January 30, 2007 Judge arya RSA NO. 3349 OF 2006 * * * Surjit Singh vs. PSEB and others PRESENT: Mr.Ajay Pal Singh,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the respondents * * * This petition is against the order dated 1.6.2006 of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Malerkotla whereby request of the plaintiff, now, petitioner for appointing Local Commissioner to go to the spot and make actual and factual report in regard to connection BK-1/4 and BK-26/4 duly installed by the defendants in the name of plaintiff, was declined. I have gone through the order. Plaintiff had already examined Patwari to say the existence of electric motor in khasra number and has also examined certain witnesses and the trial Court has declined the request of the petitioner to appoint Local Commissioner. I do not find any infirmity in the order. Dismissed. (M.M.Aggarwal) January 30, 2007 Judge arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. W. P. No. 1129 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 23,, 2007 Gurkirpal Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. R.C.Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. - J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral) The petitioner claims promotion against the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) with effect from the date a person junior to the petitioner, namely,Gurdeep Singh, respondent No.4 was promoted as Lecturer (Chemistry) vide order dated 17.4.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that for the same relief as has been noticed herein above, the petitioner has addressed legal notice dated 4.7.2006 to the respondents. It is however pointed out, that no decision has been taken thereon till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be satisfied if the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 i.e. Director Public Instructor (Schools) Punjab requiring him to take a final decision on the legal notice dated 4.7.2006 (Annexure P2). CWP No. 1115 of 2007 -2- Without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition, by directing respondent No.2 i.e. Director Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab to take a final decision on the legal notice dated 4.7.2006 (Annexure P2) by passing a well reasoned speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner is found entitled to any relief, an appropriate order in his favour shall be passed within one month thereafter. Disposed of accordingly. Order dasti on payment of usual charges. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 1107 OF 2007 * * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner * * * Notice of motion. The pleadings of the instant writ petition reveals that although the petitioner has been selected for appointment against the post of Physical Training Instructor, an offer of appointment has not been issued to him. On our asking, Mr.B.S.Chahal, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Chahal seeks an adjournment so as to enable him to obtain instructions in the matter. List on 12.2.2007. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) January 23, 2007 Judge arya C.W.P. NO. 9495 OF 2006 * * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal,AAG Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 * * * Learned counsel for the respondents seeks yet another adjournment so as to enable him to file written statement. Prayer is allowed. One last opportunity is granted to the respondents so as to enable him to file written statement. Written statement, if any, be filed within four weeks from today,