Surjeet Singh Guleria vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 November, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 9]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Surjeet Singh Guleria vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 November, 2016

Bench: Sanjay Karol

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                     SHIMLA

                                         CWP No. 1957 of 2014-F
                                         Date of Decision: 10.11.2016
    Surjeet Singh Guleria                                                      ...Petitioner.




                                                                                .

                                         Versus

    State of H.P. & others.                                                  ..Respondents.





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1No.




                                                     of
    For the Petitioner:                        Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for
                                               the petitioner.

    For the Respondent:
                          rt                   Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. AG., for
                                               respondents No.1 to 4.
    Sanjay Karol, J (oral)

The impugned order dated 09.07.2013 (Annexure P-6), so passed by Director (Panchayati Raj) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is self contradictory. On one hand authority has rejected the petitioner's representation, but on the other hand, it has observed that "There is ground to come to the conclusion that the certificate produced by the petitioner was wrongly rejected and he was arbitrarily not placed in the panel. Non inclusion of the petitioner in the panel is purely based on the basis of the low marks obtained by him as compared to the other candidates".

If authority was of the view that certificate produced by the petitioner stood wrongly rejected, in that event, considering 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:32:04 :::HCHP 2

the fact that petitioner had been working as Takniki Sahayak since the year 2002, his candidature ought to have been favourably considered, more so, in the light of the fact that 24 other similarly situated candidates stood recommended for .

appointment pursuant to the very same selection process.

2. As such, leaving all questions open, on this short ground alone, as mutually prayed for, impugned order dated 09.07.2013 (Annexure P-6), is quashed and set aside with of further direction to the Director (Panchayati Raj) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to consider and decide the rt petitioner's representation again by taking into account the entire attending circumstances and material on record, including the certificate already submitted by the petitioner at the time of his initial engagement in the year, 2002. Parties are directed to appear before the authority below on 17.11.2016. Needful be positively done within a period of two months thereafter.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

November 10, 2016 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:32:04 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court