Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Kiran Devi And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 22 September, 2015

Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                                         CWP No. 2114 of 2015.
                                                       Decided on: 22.09.2015

           Kiran Devi and others                                         .......Petitioners




                                                                                       .

                                                     Versus

           State of Himachal Pradesh and others                             ...Respondents.





           Coram
           The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
           Whether approved for reporting?1




                                                           of
           For the petitioner:                        Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate with
                                                      Shri Vikrant Chandel, Advocate
                                                      for the petitioners.
           For the respondents:rt                     Mr. Virender Verma, Addl. A.G.
                                                      with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy.
                                                      A.G. for the respondents No.1 & 2

                                                      Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate for
                                                      the respondent No.3

           Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)

This petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioners have not been called to appear in the written examination conducted for the posts of Supervisor advertised vide advertisement Annexure P-2. A direction to the respondents to issue call letters to them for appearing in the interview in question has therefore been sought.

1

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:57 :::HCHP 2

The petitioners had appeared in the written test conducted for the posts of Supervisor by third respondent under Roll Nos. 300530 (Kiran Devi), 300531 (Urnesh Kumari) and 300532 .

(Archana Devi) respectively. Their grouse that they have not been called to appear in the written test seems to be not plausible and rather false. This court vide order passed on 24.8.2015 had directed the third respondent to declare the result of of written examination undergone by the petitioners. The result has since been declared. Consequent upon the order passed on the previous date, learned counsel representing the third rt respondent has placed on record communication received from third respondent yesterday. Perusal thereof reveals that the petitioners could not qualify for the written test. They, therefore, have not been called for the personal interview. It being so, there is no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge 22nd September, 2015 (r.atal) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:57 :::HCHP