Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Bandu Bala vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 655 of 2023
.
Decided on: 27.03.2023
Smt. Bandu Bala ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parv Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Y. W.
Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.G., Ms. Priyanka
Chauhan, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan,
Law Officer.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer, appears and waives service on behalf of the respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:-
(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to re-
engage the petitioner as Lecturer in Pol. Science through post in GSSS Aloh, Distt. Kangra, H.P. as SMC against her respective post or against the posts lying vacant in various other schools.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2023 20:33:27 :::CIS 2
3. The petitioner was appointed as PGT, Pol. Science at GSSS, Aloh through School Management Committee on .
21.09.2015 and joined as such on 22.09.2015.
4. As per the pleadings, the petitioner applied for maternity leave to respondent No. 2 through e-mail dated 30.10.2015 for a period from 31.10.2015 to 30.11.2015 and again applied for extension of her maternity leave for a period of 15 days on 28.11.2015.
5. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 illegally terminated her services, that too, while she was availing maternity leave.
6. The petitioner approached the erstwhile learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 6099 of 2016, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in its earlier decision in O.A. No. 2708 of 2015, titled as Lata Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
7. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 called the petitioner as also respondent No. 4 and rejected the representation so made by the petitioner on the ground that her case did not fall within the policy as her services were purely on lecture basis. The petitioner did not choose to assail the consideration order but has filed the instant petition only on the ground of availability of ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2023 20:33:27 :::CIS 3 vacancy on regular/contract basis to which she claimed to have a preferential right.
.
8. We have gone through the material placed on record and find the petition to be totally misconceived. It is relevant to note how the petitioner can claim a preferential right of treatment because in ordinary sense 'preference' implies a priority or a favoured treatment, which is not applicable in the instant case. It deserves to be mentioned that under the Constitution every citizen is entitled to an equality of opportunity in the matter of employment as a State can ill-afford to violate the guarantees under the Constitution, more particularly, Articles 14 and 16 thereof. The Rule of equality cannot be permitted to be invoked merely because a person has been appointed on lecture basis and thereafter her services have been terminated on the joining of a regular hand.
9. That apart, the instant petition is ill-conceived as the petitioner has not assailed the decision that was taken by the respondents pursuant to the directions passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 6099 of 2016, preferred by the petitioner. Mere fact of vacancy or mere eligibility of a person alone is not determinative factor for filling-up of post under the State irrespective of the nature of the appointment. After all, as ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2023 20:33:27 :::CIS 4 observed above, every citizen is entitled to equality of opportunity in the matter of employment.
.
10. Having said so, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Virender Singh) 27 March, 2023 th r Judge (sanjeev) ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2023 20:33:27 :::CIS