Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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