Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ankush Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 22 May, 2017
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
Review Petition No. 75 of 2016.
Date of Decision : 22nd May, 2017.
Ankush Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ? No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan and Mr. Romesh
Verma, Addl. Advocate Generals with
Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
This Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment passed by this Court on 25.3.2015 in LPA No. 335 of 2012 whereby the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner came to be dismissed.
2. It is not in dispute that the decision rendered by this Court on 25.3.2015 was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 18807 of 2015 titled as Ankush Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others and the same was disposed of on 16.10.2015 in the following manner:
"Delay condoned.::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2017 00:00:17 :::HCHP 2
The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had raised a specific plea in .
the writ petition as well as in the LPA that the Interview Board which gave him marks constituted of different persons than the Board which had interviewed and on that ground it was argued that the whole process was vitiated. From the order of the Division Bench, we find that this plea of the petitioner has not been dealt with. In these circumstances, we permit the petitioner to file a review application in the High Court with the prayer to the High Court to decide the aforesaid plea of the petitioner as well.
In case, the High Court decides the review application against the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge that order by filing special leave petition and in the said special leave petition, petitioner would be permitted to raise all those issues which are raised in the instant petition.
With the aforesaid observations, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."
3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there were two Interview Boards, one headed by Sh.B.N.S. Negi, IPS, the then I.G., Central Range and the subsequent Board headed by Sh. J.R. Thakur, IPS, IG, Central Range, Mandi. As regards the first Interview Board, the minutes of the same were not signed by Sh. B.N.S. Negi, therefore, the said list cannot be treated nor considered to be a list finalised by the duly constituted Interview Board.
4. It is further contended that the respondents have supplied to the petitioner another merit list of the selected candidates, which has been duly prepared and signed by the second Interview Board on the basis of which the appointments have been made. This merit list has ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2017 00:00:17 :::HCHP 3 been signed by an entirely different committee. A comparative perusal .
of the select list purported to be finalised by the original Interview Board and subsequent list signed by different Board, reflects that there is difference in both the lists as some of the names shown in the first list do not figure in the subsequent list and, therefore, the entire selection should be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be appointed as a Constable. The aforesaid grounds have been set out in paras 7 and 9 of the petition.
5. The respondents in their reply have clarified the unnecessary confusion being created by the petitioner by pointing out that the first Recruitment Committee had prepared the final result of the recruitment of 6th India Reserve Battalion, which was duly signed by all three members including its Chairman the then Inspector General of Police Sh. B.N.S. Negi. However, the result was not declared because of the orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 6320 of 2010 on 6.10.2010 in case titled as Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. The case of the petitioner was not considered by this Board in the suitability-cum-personality test. As regards the signature of Sh. B.N.S. Negi, it has been clarified that he had duly signed the original result with ink pen, but at the time of supplying of record under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, such signatures did not reflect on the photocopies thereof giving an impression that the Chairman had not signed the final result while it was not so.
6. Coming to the constitution of the second Committee, it has been clarified that the merit list (Annexure A-5) pertaining to the candidates selected for the post of Constable in H.P. Police ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2017 00:00:17 :::HCHP 4 Department, District Mandi was prepared and signed by the second .
Interview Board on the basis of which appointments had been made. The said merit list was signed by different Committee headed by Sh. J.R. Thakur, Inspector General of Police, because during the process of recruitment, seven Home Guard candidates, who were provisionally considered in the process of recruitment were rejected as they did not fulfill the requisite eligibility criteria of two years of unblemished service in the Department of Home Guards. These seven candidates had approached this Court by filing CWP No. 6320 of 2010 (supra) with a prayer to allow them to participate in the suitability-cum- personality test, which was held from 10.10.2010 to 16.10.2010 at Mandi.
7. This Court vide its interim order dated 6.10.2010 had directed the respondents to entertain the aforesaid seven candidates in the suitability-cum-personality test, consequent to which all seven candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee/ District Recruitment Committee. This writ petition was finally allowed by this Court on 23.3.2011 and the order holding that these seven candidates were not having unblemished service of two years was quashed and set-aside.
8. It is further pointed out that in addition to the aforesaid seven candidates there were ten other similarly situated Home Guards whose cases had been rejected in the same and similar manner and, therefore, the respondents on the ground of parity and natural justice, decided to examine these remaining ten other applicants/ candidates of Home Guard Department in the suitability-cum-personality test. ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2017 00:00:17 :::HCHP 5 However, by that time, all the members including the Chairman of the .
Recruitment Committee originally constituted had been transferred to different other stations out of District Mandi, necessitating the constitution of the fresh Committee comprising officers of same rank and designation to meet the ends of natural justice and equity. It was then, that the second Selection-cum-Recruitment Committee was re- constituted and conducted the suitability-cum-personality test of the aforesaid ten applicants/ candidates belonging to the Home Guard, who, as observed earlier, had earlier been left out.
9. Notably, the petitioner has not controverted any of these allegations either while filing rejoinder to the writ petition nor he has controverted the same before this Court by filing of rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents to this appeal.
10. Having said so, we find no error much less error apparent on the face of the record, consequently, there is no merit in this review petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol),
Acting Chief Justice
May 22, 2017. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(GR) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2017 00:00:17 :::HCHP