Where an appointment scheme is discontinued, no writ can be issued for appointment under it—even if the petitioner’s claim was earlier recommended or decided in their favour. This judgment affirms existing precedent and is binding authority for all subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana on writ relief for ceased contractual or scheme-based posts in the education sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/15936/2019 of NEERU DOGRA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010724312019 |
| Date of Registration | 30-05-2019 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Service/Administrative Law; Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce appointment as Education Volunteer after the scheme’s discontinuation by the government. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The scheme for appointment of Education Volunteers was temporary in nature and was discontinued by the State of Punjab w.e.f. 29.04.2011. As the foundational scheme ceased, no subsisting right to appointment existed. Accordingly, no relief can be granted through writ jurisdiction for appointment under a non-existent scheme, regardless of any earlier inquiry recommendations or representation decisions. The writ petition was therefore dismissed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought appointment as Education Volunteer based on an inquiry officer’s report. The relevant appointment scheme had been discontinued by the State in 2011; the petitioner’s earlier representation had already been decided rejecting the claim, and this rejection was not challenged. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that appointments cannot be ordered by writ where the underlying government scheme or policy has been discontinued.
- Clarifies that even prior favourable recommendations or orders do not revive a ceased scheme.
- Establishes that delay in challenging the rejection of a representation further bars relief once the scheme has ended.
- Can be cited as authority in service matters where contract/scheme-based positions have since lapsed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that appointment of Education Volunteers was governed by a specific scheme, which was temporary in nature.
- It was admitted by both parties that the scheme ended on 29.04.2011.
- The court referenced the fact that the petitioner’s earlier representation had already been considered and rejected after the closure of the scheme, and this rejection remained unchallenged.
- Since no scheme existed at the time of deciding the writ, there was no legal right that could be enforced by a writ of mandamus.
- Thus, the court held that no relief could be granted and dismissed the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Relied on the inquiry officer’s report recommending appointment as Education Volunteer.
- Sought a writ of mandamus for appointment on that basis.
Respondents
- Stated that the appointment scheme for Education Volunteers had been discontinued by the State w.e.f. 29.04.2011.
- Pointed out that the appointment letter to respondent No.4 (challenged by petitioner) was irrelevant as even respondent No.4 left the post in 2019.
- Highlighted that a previous petition by the petitioner resulted in rejection of her claim via order dated 27.08.2018, which was not challenged.
Factual Background
The petitioner sought appointment as Education Volunteer in a government school, citing an inquiry officer’s report in her favour. She appealed the issuance of an appointment letter to another respondent. The State of Punjab had, however, discontinued the scheme for Education Volunteer appointments with effect from 29.04.2011. The petitioner’s earlier representation seeking appointment under the scheme was rejected in 2018, a decision which she did not challenge.
Statutory Analysis
The court considered the nature of the government scheme under which Education Volunteers were engaged. It found the scheme was temporary and had been formally discontinued on 29.04.2011, meaning statutory or policy-based authority for such appointments ceased thereafter. No statutory provision was interpreted to justify continued appointments post cessation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directives have been enunciated by the court in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms settled law that writ cannot be issued for appointments or rights arising under ceased government schemes.