Himachal Pradesh High Court
Varinder Singh Chauhan And Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr on 14 September, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP Nos. 6881 and 4438 of 2022
Date of Decision: 14.9.2023
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 6881 of 2022
Varinder Singh Chauhan and Ors
.........Petitioners
of
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
.......Respondents
2. CWP No.4438 of 2022
Ajay Kumar
rt .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocates
General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Since in both the above captioned petitions, petitioners have raised similar issue, this Court heard them together and disposed of the same vide common judgment.
2. For the sake of brevity, facts of CWP No. 4438 of 2022 are being discussed herein after. Petitioner has approached this Court in ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:33:04 :::CIS -2- the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of .
India, praying therein for following main reliefs:
"i) That the Petitioner may kindly be held eligible for recruitment to the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist on batch-wise basis on contract appointment, in pursuance to the advertisement issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure P-6( Colly.)
ii) That the respondents may also be directed to notify the of vacancies of Ayurvedic Pharmacist going to be filled up on batch-wise basis on contract, to the Employment Exchange in terms of provisions of Section 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, in the interest rt of justice.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that in the year, 2008, petitioner after having passed diploma in Pharmacy in Ayurveda (D.Pharm-Ayurveda) got himself registered with the Board of Ayurvedic & Unani System of Medicines, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner got himself registered with Employment Exchange Dehra on 20.9.2019 (Annexure P-5), for making himself eligible for batch wise selection against the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist. In the year, 2022, department of Ayurveda notified process for filling up 16 posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacist on batch-wise basis and in that regard, invited applications vide public notice (Annexure P-6). Apart from above, department of Ayurveda also sent requisition to various Employment Exchanges in the State for sponsoring the names of the eligible candidates. Since the name of petitioner despite his being eligible was not recommended by the concerned Employment ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:33:04 :::CIS -3- Exchange, he was unable to participate in batch wise selection, as a .
result of which, person junior to him came to be appointed against the post in question. Since name of the petitioner was not considered for batch wise appointment on account of failure on the part of the Employment Exchange Dehra to recommend his name, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article of 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for relief(s) as have been reproduced herein above.
3. rt Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since on 1.1.2022, name of the petitioner stood registered with the Employment Exchange Dehra, respondent department ought to have considered him on batch-wise basis against the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that concerned Employment Exchange after receipt of requisition from the department concerned is/was under obligation to sponsor the name of the petitioner being fully eligible for the post in question. While inviting attention of this court to the public notice (Annexure P-6), Mr. Parav further argued that maximum age limit for the recruitment to the post in question was otherwise 45 years as on 1.1.2022 and as such, plea set up by the respondents that petitioner had become overage at the time of the selection is not tenable. He further submitted that in the ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:33:04 :::CIS -4- year, 2020, certain posts for the Ayurvedic Pharmacist were .
advertised, but even at that juncture, name of the petitioner was not sponsored and as such, prayer made in the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General while refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by the of learned counsel for the petitioner justified the action of the respondents in as much as not considering his case for appointment rt against the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist on batch-wise basis. He submitted that since name of the petitioner was not recommended by the Employment Exchange concerned, there was otherwise no occasion for the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post in question. While making this court to peruse the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that department of Ayurveda vide communication dated 13.6.2022 had written to all the Regional Employment Exchanges of the State to send the names of eligible candidates for filling up 30 posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacist on batch-wise basis. He further submitted that since alongwith the aforesaid communication, Recruitment & Promotion Rules qua the post in question were made available to the Employment Exchanges, Employment Exchange Dehra rightly not recommended the name of the petitioner on account of his having crossed the upper age limit of 45 years as on 1.1.2022. While ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:33:04 :::CIS -5- refuting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the .
year, 2020 post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist were advertised and name of the petitioner was not sponsored at that time, Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that illegality, if any, committed in the year 2020 cannot be raked up in the instant petition, wherein admittedly name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the of Employment Exchange on account of his having become overage.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused rt material available on record, this court finds that name of the petitioner stood registered with Employment Exchange Dehra and lastly, it was renewed on 20.9.2019 as is evident from the Annexure -
5, meaning thereby, petitioner was eligible to be considered against the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist, however, it is not in dispute that name of the petitioner was not recommended by the Employment Exchange Dehra pursuant to requisition sent by the department of Ayurveda vide communication dated 13.6.2022 (Annexure R1), whereby all Employment Exchanges across the State were directed to recommend the name of the eligible candidates for filing up 30 posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacist on batch wise contract basis. Though it has been vehemently argued by Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate, representing the petitioner that pursuant to requisition dated 13.6.2022, Employment Exchange Dehra was under obligation to recommend the sponsor his name for the post in question, but this court finds no merit in the ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:33:04 :::CIS -6- aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner because .
public notice issued by the department of Ayurveda for filling up the aforesaid 38 posts on contract basis clearly reveals that upper age limit for recruitment against the post in question was 45 years as on 1.1.2022. Since on 1.1.2022, petitioner had crossed the upper age limit of 45 years, there was otherwise no occasion for the Employment of Exchange Dehra to recommend his name. Though Mr. Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that upper age limit as rt noticed herein above was only mentioned in the public notice and there was no such condition in the requisition sent by the department to the employment exchanges and as such, Employment Exchange Dehra was under obligation to sponsor his name on account of his registration done in 2019, however, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid submission for the reason that while sending requisition, department always makes the Employment Exchanges aware with regard to Recruitment & Promotion Rules governing the post in question. Once in Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist, it stood specifically mentioned that person having age of 18 to 45 years shall be eligible for appointment and by that time, petitioner had already crossed upper age of 45 years, there was otherwise no occasion for the Employment Exchange Dehra to recommend the name of the petitioner. Moreover, this Court finds that Employment Exchange Dehra has not been made party and as such, ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:33:04 :::CIS -7- this court is unable to discern/find out that on what basis, name of .
the petitioner was not recommended at that relevant time by the concerned Employment Exchange, however, aforesaid conclusion drawn by this Court for not sponsoring the name of the petitioner pursuant to requisition sent by the department of Ayurveda is based upon the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3, wherein specific reason of has been given for not sponsoring the name of the petitioner against the post in question at that relevant time.
6. rt As far as another contention of the petitioner that his name was not considered in the year, 2020, this Court finds no reason to go into that aspect of the matter, especially when there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that at that relevant time, petitioner had ever raised this issue either by filing representation to the department or petition in the competent court of law.
7. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present petitions and same are dismissed accordingly.
September 14, 2023 (Sandeep Sharma)
manjit Judge
::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:33:04 :::CIS