CWP-23300-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 212 REENA AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The mandamus directing service as Extension Lecturer In terms of interim order dated allowed to continue in service. the third respondent/Principal, Government College for Women, petitioner no.1 absented from duty without intimation with effect from 24.11.2017, and 2. Learned c petitioner no.3 Court by filing 28.07.2022, directing the respondents to consider her representation. is not in service. respondents have notified Extension Lecturer 2017 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: REENA AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia directing the respondents to allow the petitioner service as Extension Lecturers till regularly selected candidates join service. In terms of interim order dated 10.10.2017, initially all the petitioners continue in service. However, as per short reply filed on behalf of the third respondent/Principal, Government College for Women, 1 absented from duty without intimation with effect from and only petitioners no.2 and 3 continued working Learned counsel for the petitioners no.3 was also removed from service later, and she approached this by filing CWP-24097-2021, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider her representation. is not in service. He also contends that during pendency of the petition, the have notified a new Policy for engagement Extension Lecturers. Accordingly, the petitioners may be permitted to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23300-2017 Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 …Petitioner(s) …Respondent(s) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA , Advocate with Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate Advocate General, Haryana. inter alia, seeking a writ of to allow the petitioners to continue in till regularly selected candidates join service. , initially all the petitioners were per short reply filed on behalf of the third respondent/Principal, Government College for Women, Badhra, 1 absented from duty without intimation with effect from continued working there. ounsel for the petitioners, however, contends that removed from service later, and she approached this , which was disposed of vide order dated directing the respondents to consider her representation. And she He also contends that during pendency of the petition, the new Policy for engagement and continuance of titioners may be permitted to seeking a writ of to continue in till regularly selected candidates join service. were per short reply filed on behalf of Badhra, 1 absented from duty without intimation with effect from contends that removed from service later, and she approached this vide order dated And she He also contends that during pendency of the petition, the of titioners may be permitted to Aman Dua 2025.09.12 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-23300-2017 withdraw the representation adjustment/continuance ordered to be decided within a specified period. 3. Learned State counsel representation is filed second respondent/ accordance with law 4. In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof. 5. Ordered accordingly. service as per the short reply filed on behalf of respondents, allowed to rem considering he is not filed wit 08.09.2025 Ad 2017 -2- withdraw the present petition with liberty to petitioner no.2 to representation to the respondents to consider adjustment/continuance in service in terms thereof ordered to be decided within a specified period. Learned State counsel submits that in case any such representation is filed within two weeks, the same will be decided by second respondent/Director, Higher Education accordance with law. In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner no.2 is already continuing in service as per the short reply filed on behalf of respondents, main in service only in terms of er entitlement as per the latest P thin two weeks from today, her services Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable with liberty to petitioner no.2 to make a to consider her case for in terms thereof. The representation may be ordered to be decided within a specified period. submits that in case any such , the same will be decided by the Education, by passing a speaking order in In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof. etitioner no.2 is already continuing in service as per the short reply filed on behalf of respondents, but she will be f decision on her representation Policy. In case the representation services will be dispensed with. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No make a for The representation may be submits that in case any such the passing a speaking order in s etitioner no.2 is already continuing in be n n ) Aman Dua 2025.09.12 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document