Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vijan Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 4 August, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4161 of 2022 Date of Decision:4. 08.2023 .
_______________________________________________________ Vijan Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 of For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. rt B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:-
"(i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the action of the respondents may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to interview the petitioner and if the petitioner is on merit, then offer appointment to him to the post of Multi Task Worker."
2. Afore prayer made in the petition has been opposed by the respondents-State by filing reply, but before the case at hand 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2023 20:45:29 :::CIS 2could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned Advocate General while making available copy of Notification dated 25th August 2022, issued under the signature of Principal Secretary (Education) to .
the Government of Himachal Pradesh, contends that to look into the complaint, if any, with regard to procedure or interpretation of the guidelines framed for appointment of Part time Multi Task Worker, Appellate Authority has been constituted, wherein provision of appeal of has been provided, which in any manner is required to be decided within a period of 15 days from the date of filing.
3. rt In the case at hand, precisely the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per policy, persons between the age of 18 to 45 could apply for post of Multi Task Worker and there is another provision for relaxation of five years in age, but yet candidature of the petitioner, who though was over age but could be given relaxation has been rejected. Since Government of Himachal Pradesh has already constituted Appellate Authority, as noticed hereinabove, to look into the complaints, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive and accordingly same is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal within a period of 15 days before the Appellate Authority, who shall decide the same within a period of 15 days after affording due opportunity of ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2023 20:45:29 :::CIS 3 being heard to both the parties. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed .
of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 4, 2023 (shankar) of rt ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2023 20:45:29 :::CIS