Full Judgment
CWP No.2264 of 2014 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2264 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.2.2014 Yadwinder Singh .Petitioner v.
The State of Punjab and others .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of ETT Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement issued in July, 2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has qualification to teach the children with disability.
He further submitted that earlier his case was not considered on the ground that the qualification held by him was not recognised, however, later on the qualification held by the petitioner was recognised by National Council for Teachers Education vide notification dated 23.8.2010, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered.
He further submitted that a representation dated 17.1.2014 (Annexure P-18) has been made to the respondents, however, the same has not been responded to.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere in the present petition at this stage.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.10580 of 2006 in this court, which was disposed of on 18.8.2008 along with a bunch of petitions with judgment in CWP No.11773 of 2007-Deepak Sharma and others v.
State of Punjab and otheRs.rejecting the claim of the petitioner pertaining to the qualification.
It was opined therein that the court is not an expert body to determine the equivalence of degrees/diplomas, which is left for expert bodies to determine.
The aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this court Kumar Manoj 2014.02.10 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2264 of 2014 [2].attained finality.
Any further notification issued by National Council for Teachers Education on 23.8.2010 will not confer any right on the petitioner to raise an issue that he should be given appointment against the vacancies, which were advertised way back in July, 2007.
For the reasons mentioned above and also on account of delay and laches, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.2.2014 mk Kumar Manoj 2014.02.10 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document