CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 01 P&H CK 0277

Amarpreet Randhawa vs State of Punjab and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 31 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Kannan, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 12471 of 2011 (O and M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 339 words

K. Kannan, J.

CM No. 1149 of 2012

CM is allowed.

Replication is taken on record.

CM stands disposed of.

CWP No.12471 of 2011

1.

The writ petition seeks for regularization of service of the petitioner, who had been appointed on contract basis by order dated 21.03.2006 as Computer Science teacher. In terms of a Government policy issued on 02.12.2010, a teacher, who has served 2 & 1/2 years and whose conduct is good, is entitled to be considered for regularization. The petitioner''s plea is that he has not been regularized in terms of the policy. The reply has been filed by the respondents stating that the ACR for 2009-10 evaluated the teacher''s performance as below average and consequently the consideration for regularization was not possible to be taken favourably.

2.

The counsel appearing for the respondents himself submits that the petitioner has not been served with the ACR containing adverse remarks. The petitioner, however, has taken notice of the adverse entry in his replication and seeks to contend that the assessment has been wrongly made. So long as the work and conduct has not been assessed as good, there is no question of favourable consideration for regularization.

3.The issue of whether the appraisal has been fair and proper is not the subject of the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner has a further apprehension that he has been serving for the last 5 years and more and seeks for protection against termination. I am afraid, the prayers now sought by the learned counsel go beyond the brief and reserving the petitioner a right to state his objection within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and seek for a review of the appraisal made in the ACR and for regularization, if he fulfills the benchmark. The respondents shall make an objective assessment, without in any way being influenced by the fact of the pendency of the writ petition and the contentions raised against the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of.