Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Kuldeep Dogra vs State Of H.P. And Others on 17 December, 2018

Bench: Surya Kant, Ajay Mohan Goel

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                               CWP No. :             4416 of 2012




                                                         .
                               Decided on:           17.12.2018.





    Kuldeep Dogra                                    ....Petitioner.





         Versus
    State of H.P. and others                         ...Respondents.
    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice.



    For the petitioner :

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
                            Petitioner in person.

    For the respondents   :    Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
                               General with M/s. Ranjan
                               Sharma, Adarsh Sharma and
                               Ritta Goswami, Additional



                               Advocate Generals for
                               respondent/State.




                          :    Mrs. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate
                               for respondent No. 4.





                          :    M/s Jyotirmay Bhatt and
                               Anubhuti Sharma, Advocates for





                               respondents No. 5 and 6.
    Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral)

This petition has been filed purportedly in public interest challenging the question of appointment of respondent No. 5 as a Craft Teacher and obviously, seeking a writ of quo-

warranto. The plea taken is that though respondent No. 5 was possessing requisite academic qualification, as provided in the .

Statutory Rules, on the date of her appointment, nevertheless, her appointment amounts to fraud on public exchequer as she was over age at that time.

2. Leaned Additional Advocate General states that the name of respondent No. 5 was registered with the Employment Exchange and as per the State Government Policy which is applied uniformly, the said respondent was entitled to age relaxation to the extent of period, for which her name remained registered with the Employment Exchange.

3. Record demonstrates that seven posts of Craft Teachers alongwith various other posts were advertised vide advertisement No. 2/99, dated 05.03.1999. The age limit prescribed in the advertisement was between 18 to 38 years.

Respondent No. 5 also applied for the post of Craft Teacher.

Her age as per her application was 40 years, 7 months and 22 days. The specific stand of the respondent No. 4 in its reply in para 4 on merit is as under:-

"It is also submitted as per rules notified by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education) to the ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2018 22:55:06 :::HCHP Govt. of H.P. vide notification No. Shiksha-II-ka(4)- 2/80 dated 20.04.1986, the maximum age limit for direct recruitment in case of certain persons of the .

teaching services in the Education Department, H.P. is not applicable namely:-

The maximum age limits prescribed in any Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the Education Deptt. shall not be applicable in the following cases if the candidate before attaining the maximum age limit prescribed for the service.

(a) is registered in any Employment Exchange set up under the Employment Exchange (compulsory Notification of vacancies-Act-1959) or

(b) is engaged as adhoc or Volunteer teacher by the State Government.

Keeping in view the above rules, the candidature of respondent No. 5 was considered which were actually not inserted in the advertisement dated 05.03.1999."

[emphasis applied]

4. The petitioner fairly concedes that respondent No. 5 was appointed as Craft Teacher on 19th October, 2000, whereas the instant writ petition has been filed in the year 2012. On a further query, the petitioner informs that respondent No. 5 has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.

5. Having heard the petitioner appearing in person at a considerable length, at this stage and juncture, we are .

satisfied that the instant writ petition in purported public interest is not maintainable in a matter pertaining to appointment in government service and that too on a basic level post like the Craft Teacher. Secondly, the fact that 5th respondent was possessing the requisite qualification as prescribed under the Rules at the time of her appointment would completely dissuade this Court from issuing a writ of quo-warranto. Thirdly, the grant of age relaxation by the competent Authority is in terms of the State Government Policy for the reason that the name of respondent No. 5 was registered in the Employment Exchange and thus the age relaxation given to her for the period for which her name remained registered with the Employment Exchange, was justified. Fourthly, assuming that there was some irregularity or illegality at the time of appointment of 5th respondent, this petition at this juncture deserves to be dismissed, for the said respondent has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. We have serious doubts on the maintainability of this petition and the same is accordingly ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2018 22:55:06 :::HCHP dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application also stand dismissed.

.

(Surya Kant) Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 17, 2018 (narender/K) r to ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2018 22:55:06 :::HCHP