UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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