Himachal Shikshak Kranti Manch

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16975 of 2010 & connected petitions Date of Decision: July 20, 2011 Ramesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. H.N Khanduja, Advocate, Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocte, Mr. Vivek Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, I. 1. This order shall dispose of a group of petitions* filed under Article 226 of the Constitution because constitutional validity of Rule 10 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (for brevity, 'the 2008 Rules'), with regard to shifting the date of increment has been challenged. 2. Facts are being stated from CWP No. 169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 7121 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 20, 2012 ARUN KUMAR PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER PRESENT: Mr. GP Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Senior Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (Oral) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking directions from the Court for appointment of adequate teachers in the Government Primary Schools and Government Middle Schools named in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, there is a shortage of JBT Teachers in the said schools and particularly after coming into force of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the student-teacher ratio in the schools in question has drastically fallen in comparison t

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 17449 of 2008 & connected cases Date of Decision: November 29, 2010 Vijay Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Gopal Krishan Chatrath, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, and Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. AG, Haryana, With Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, Asstt. AG, Haryana, Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kohal Dev Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 10 petitions involving common questions of law and facts. However, the facts have been referred from CWP No. 17449 of 2008. 2. The Guest Teachers working in