Full Judgment
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19275 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19275 of 2012 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY30 2014 Pardeep Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH1 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.Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.D.A.G., Haryana, for the State.
***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
(ORAL) A similar matter i.e.CWP No.9525 of 2012, titled 'Amarjeet & others versus State of Haryana & otheRs.has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2014, which reads as follows: “Petitioners have approached this Court asserting that the advertisements, which are issued by the respondents for filling up several posts of I.T.I.Instructors in various trades on contract basis, are not in consonance with the Haryana Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, Field Officers (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 nor are these qualifications in consonance with the decision of the 38th Harish Kumar 2014.02.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19275 of 2012 -2- meeting of the National Council for Vocational Training held on 31.05.2010, decision whereof was communicated to the various State Governments vide letter dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P-12).On the basis of these submissions, counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned advertisements issued by the respondents, being contrary to the statutory rules as also the mandate and the decision of the National Council for Vocational Training in its 38th meeting dated 31.05.2010, cannot sustain and deserve to be set-aside.
Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that prior to the communication dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P-12).a communication dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure R-1) was received by the respondents- department, wherein the requirements with regard to the qualifications of Instructors were different and on the basis of this communication dated 08.08.2010, the advertisements have been issued.
He, however, could not dispute the fact that the subsequent communication dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P-12).would now prevail to the extent there is any conflict between the two as the prior communication will have to give way to the subsequent communication.
In the light of the above position, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to advertise the posts in future, to be filled on contract basis in various trades of I.T.I.Instructors at Government I.T.Is., incorporating therein the qualifications as provided under the statutory rules or in consonance with the qualifications now provided in the communication dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P-12) or later thereon.
It shall, however, be open to the respondents-department to seek clarification with regard Harish Kumar 2014.02.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19275 of 2012 -3- to the two communications dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P-12) and 06.08.2010 (Annexure R-1) from the competent authority, which shall accordingly be adhered to and followed.”
.
The present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terMs.January 30, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) Harish JUDGE Harish Kumar 2014.02.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document