Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/108/2019 on 7 November, 2019
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
.
CWP No. 108 of 2019 07.11.2019 Present: Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, with M/s Seema Sharma & Divya Sood, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Respondents No. 6 to 8 are ex parte.
Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced the original application forms submitted by the petitioner as well as private respondent, as also other candidates, who applied for the post in issue. A perusal of the application form submitted by the private respondent demonstrates that the copy of the Parivar Register appended with the same contained a Note that family of the private respondent, as reflected in the said Parivar Register, stood separated from the month of January, 2016.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Notification dated 20 th July, 2016 (Annexure P1) and on the strength of the contents of the same, he has submitted that the private respondent was not eligible to be considered for appointment against the post in issue, because in terms of the conditions, as stood incorporated in the said Notification, the applicant had to provide a copy of the Parivar Register from Panchayat Secretary, in which, it ought to have been clearly mentioned that the family of the applicant was living as a separate entity before 1st January, 2016.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to Notification dated 29th February, 2016, also appended with the petition and on the strength of the contents of the said Notification, he has ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 20:27:46 :::HCHP .
argued that the Notification envisaged Frozen List of families as on 1st January of the Recruitment Year, which were to be displayed on the Notice Board of all offices to enable eligible women members of the said families to apply for the post in issue. On the strength of the language of the Notification, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that as in the record, the family of the private respondent stood reflected as a separate family w.e.f. 01.01.2016, she was eligible to compete for the post in issue. He further submits that the contention which he is so making, is without prejudice to other stand of the private respondent that the family in fact stood separated much before that, i.e., on 02.10.2015, when approval in this regard was accorded by the Gram Sabha and an entry to this effect stood entered in the Parivar Register.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also private respondent, as there appears to be some mismatch in the language which has been used in Notification dated 20 th July, 2016 visavis Notification dated 29 th February, 2016, before the matter is heard any further, Secretary (Social Justice and Empowerment), Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to file his personal affidavit explaining therein that as per the Government of Himahal Pradesh, what is the cut off date on which the status of the family of the applicant has to be assessed and ascertained to gauge the eligibility of the candidate. Is it as on 1st January or otherwise? Let the needful ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 20:27:46 :::HCHP .
be done before the next date of hearing. Record be retained. As prayed for, list on 21st November, 2019.
Copy dasti.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 07, 2019 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 20:27:46 :::HCHP