Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. And Others vs Dr. D.K. Verma And Another on 10 July, 2017
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 555 of 2011 .
Date of Decision: 10.7.2017 State of H.P. and others Appellant Versus Dr. D.K. Verma and another ...Respondents __________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Mr. Romesh Verma and Mr. Anup Rattan, Additional Advocates General for the appellant-State.
For the respondent : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rashmi Parmar, Advocate.
Per Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice On 22.2.2004, the private respondent, original applicant, who was discharging his duties as Professor, was 53 years of age. In the impugned order, we find the learned Single Judge to have decided the issue, limited to the ground of violation of principle of nature justice.
2. Petitioner, who was promoted as Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Post Graduate Government Ayurvedic College, Paprola, vide order dated 19.9.2003 was initially restrained from discharging such duties and then subsequently, said ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 23:57:48 :::HCHP 2 order of promotion came to be cancelled on 23.10.2003.
Before us, it cannot be disputed that the findings returned by learned Single Judge qua violation of principle of natural .
justice are not borne out from the records. Demotion entails civil consequence. As such, without affording any opportunity of hearing, or assigning any reason, action impugned in the writ petition is wholly unsustainable in law and as such, findings returned by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 10248 of 2008, dated 13.5.2011, titled as "Dr.D.K. Verma versus State of H.P. & another" cannot be said to be illegal and erroneous.
3. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn our attention to para-8 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:
"Insofar as the ground (a) is concerned, admittedly the petitioner was the only Professor in the College. However, no fault can be found with him on this score. In case, there was only one Professor, he alone could have been considered for promotion to the post of Principal in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short "R & P Rules"), Annexure A-2. With regard to passing of departmental examination, suffice it to say that there is no such requirement in the R & P Rules."
4. We may only observe that observations contained therein are in the nature of obiter and not to have decided either the principle of law or the case on merits.
2 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 23:57:48 :::HCHP 35. In view of the discussions and observation made hereinabove, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are also stand disposed of.
.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 10, 2017 Kalpana r to 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 23:57:48 :::HCHP