Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pyar Chand Thakur vs State Of Hp And Others on 17 August, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 3395 of 2019
Decided on: August 17, 2020
____________________________________________________________
.
Pyar Chand Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of HP and others ...Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1?
____________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate,
through video-conferencing.
For the respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional
Advocate General, through video-
conferencing, for respondents Nos. 1
r to 3.
Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for
respondent No.4, through video-
conferencing.
____________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:
"(a) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the respondents Board to allow the petitioner to appear in typing test and select and appoint the petitioner from the date all other incumbents were selected and appointed in the said selection process with all consequential benefits, and arrears alongwith interest thereon @ 18% pa;"
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .
::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 20:21:06 :::HCHP -2-2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner in the case at hand is that the respondent Board has wrongly not allowed him to .
appear in the typing test.
3. A careful perusal of the reply filed by the respondents especially respondent No.4 reveals that the petitioner had not rendered 5 years regular service or regular combined with daily wage service or on contract basis as per amendments made in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Clerks, issued by Personnel Department, vide Notification No. Per(AP-C)-A(3)-2/80 dated 28th May, 2010 (Annexure R-1). Services of the petitioner were regularized on 24.9.2012 i.e. after the date of submission of the application. Since the petitioner was not eligible for the post in question at the time of submission of application, his application rightly came to be rejected as such, no fault, if any, can be found with the action of the respondents.
4. In view of above, the petition at hand fails and is accordingly dismissed alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 17, 2020 (Vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 20:21:06 :::HCHP