Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49182 (PNJ)

POOJA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CWP/11294/2025 · 2025-04-25

Tribhuvan Dahiya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-11294-2025 -1- 126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11294-2025 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 POOJA ..... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA , J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the office order dated 26.10.2024, whereby the petitioner, who was working as Junior Librarian under the Outsourcing Policy, Part-II at Government College for Women, Kalayat, Kaithal, was relieved due to joining of a regular employee against the post of Junior Librarian. 2. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 26.10.2024, by filing Civil Writ Petition no. 3360-2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.03.2025 with the following order: After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to approach the Department seeking adjustment in any Seema 2025.05.01 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11294-2025 -2- other college. 2. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after withdrawing the petition, the petitioner approached the respondents by filing a representation dated, 10.03.2025, Annexure P-11, but no action has been taken thereupon. Therefore, she has a right to approach this Court again by filing the writ petition. 4. Apparently, the earlier petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the order impugned herein, dated 26.10.2024, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.03.2025. No permission was granted to file it afresh at any stage. Merely because a fresh representation has been made by the petitioner or the respondents have not taken any action thereupon, it would not give rise to any cause of action. The instant petition is an abuse of process of law and has resulted in wastage of Court time. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with ₹5000 as costs to be deposited with the Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within four weeks. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 25.04.2025 JUDGE Sima Sima Sima Sima Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Seema 2025.05.01 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document