Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

No Misrepresentation in Freedom Fighter Category Appointments of Punjabi Teachers; Seniority to be Revised: Punjab and Haryana HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma delivered a nuanced judgment in the case involving the alleged misrepresentation in the appointment of Punjabi Language Teachers under the Freedom Fighter category. The case, comprising petitions filed by Neetu Sharma (CWP No. 5854 of 2014), Rukhsana and others (CWP No. 10879 of 2023), and Navneet Kaur (CWP No. 24399 of 2023), revolved around the contentious issue of the classification of applicants as children or grandchildren of Freedom Fighters.

The heart of the legal debate was whether the respondents, appointed as Punjabi Language Teachers, had misrepresented themselves as children of Freedom Fighters when they were, in fact, grandchildren. This alleged misrepresentation was claimed to have given them an unfair advantage in the selection process.

Petitioner Neetu Sharma, along with other petitioners, challenged the appointment of certain individuals under the Freedom Fighter category, alleging misrepresentation. The issue was exacerbated by the State Government’s casual approach to the selection process, which lacked clarity in differentiating between ‘children’ and ‘grandchildren’ of Freedom Fighters.

In its assessment, the Court found that while the respondents were indeed grandchildren of Freedom Fighters, they had not misrepresented this fact in their application forms. “The documents/ certificates relating to the petitioner and respondents were with the State Government that they are the children/ grandchildren of the Freedom Fighters,” Justice Sharma observed. He added, “Thus, it cannot be said to be misrepresentation on the part of Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 6 to 8.”

The High Court directed the State Government to consider Neetu Sharma’s case for appointment, placing her higher in seniority than those appointed in 2012. However, it stopped short of quashing the appointments of the respondents, allowing them to continue their service but with revised seniority. Neetu Sharma was entitled to all consequential benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, effective from the date of the order.

Date of Decision: 16th February 2024.

Neetu Sharma vs State of Punjab and others,

Latest Legal News