Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/1691/2021 on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sandeep Sharma
CWP No.1691 of 2021 .
18.3.2021 Present: Mr. Shubham Sood, Proxy Counsel, for the petitioners.
Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Mr. Narender Guleria, Mr. Hemant Vaid & Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Mr. Kunal Thakur and Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the State.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Balram Sharma, ASGI, for respondents No. 4 and 5. r CMP No.3092 of 2021 Allowed. The application stands disposed of.
CWP No.1691 of 2021 & CMP No. 3093 of 2021 Notice. Mr. Hemant Vaid, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate and Mr. Balram Sharma, learned ASGI, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents/State, respondent No.2 and respondents No. 4 & 5, respectively. Notice be issued to respondents No.6 to 8, on steps being taken, within one week, returnable for 29.4.2021.
Reply by appearing respondents be filed within the afore period.
Since the learned Single Judge of this Court in his verdict, rendered, upon, CWP No. 1001 of 2020, on16.9.2020, has made observations, and, relevant para whereof stands extracted hereinafter:
"5.Before parting, this Court wishes to observe that respondent No.2, while considering issue of equivalence of degree of M.S. Pharma awarded by NIPER with the degree of M.Pharma awarded by other recognized Universities, would peruse the material adduced on record by the petitioners."
::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2021 20:22:58 :::HCHPTherethrough the factum of equivalence, of, the .
educational qualifications possessed by the writ petitioner, with the ones, as contemplated in the R&P Rules, stand(s) inferred to be co-equal. However, the respondents concerned, without meteing any reverence to the afore extracted observations, occurring in the afore decision, made by the learned Singe Judge of this Court, proceeded to, through Annexure P-10, reject the candidature of the writ petitioner.
r Even though, the afore rejection, hence prima facie is contumacious, as such, liberty is reserved to the counsel representing the petitioner to file a contempt petition before the learned Single Judge concerned.
Consequently, at this stage, this court is constrained to provisionally permit the writ petitioner to participate in the relevant recruitment process. However, the provisional participation of the writ petitioner, in the relevant recruitment process, for the advertised post, shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Alteration, modification and vacation on motion.
Dasti copy.
(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 18, 2021 (Manjit/shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2021 20:22:58 :::HCHP