Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ex. N. K. Hima Nand vs State Of H.P. And Others on 2 March, 2017
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 5871/2012-H
Date of decision: March 02, 2017
Ex. N. K. Hima Nand
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others
of
....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner :Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate
For respondents No.1 to 3 :Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. A.G. and
Ms. Parul Negi, Dy.A. G.
For respondent No.4 : None
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)
By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(A) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the appointment of respondent No.4 as Regular Water carrier in the office of respondent No.2 i.e. S.P. Kangra at Dharamshala may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(B) That a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Regular Water carrier in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala, being senior to respondent No.4 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:57:47 :::HCHP 2
with all consequential benefits from the date when respondent No.4 was illegally appointed.
.
(C) That the entire record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(D) That the petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout.
of
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that his name was recommended for appointment as Water Carrier in the newly rt created post to the Commandant 6th I.R. Bn. Kollar at Nahan, Distt.
Sirmaur (H.P.), no offer of appointment was made to him and instead, respondent No.4, who was otherwise junior to him in his capacity as an Ex-serviceman, was offered appointment against the said post. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said act of the respondent-State on the ground that denying appointment to senior Ex-serviceman is arbitrary, discriminatory and the appointment offered to respondent No.4 was liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the same was in fact offered to him in collusion with respondents No.2 & 3. By way of their reply filed to the writ petition, respondents No.1 & 2 have opposed the petition and have denied the ground taken in the petition. As per the said respondents, the petitioner was not offered appointment because the post of Water Carrier was in fact to be filled from amongst the eligible Ex-servicemen, who were permanent resident of District Kangra and as the petitioner was not ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:57:47 :::HCHP 3 permanent resident of District Kangra but was permanent resident of .
District Shimla. It is only for the said reason, he was not considered for appointment.
3. Ms. Parul Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure R-6 i.e. requisition on the basis of of which the appointments were made and perusal of the said annexure demonstrates that the detail of the posts to be filled in were mentioned therein as under:rt Sr.No. Category Distribution Vertical Horizonta of posts on reservation l population Reservati basis for on Kangra District.
1. Water 04 U.R. = 01 -
Carrier S.C. = 01 -
OBC = 01 -
U.R.=01 For
-
Ex- serviceman
2. Sweeper 04 U.R. = 01 -
S.C. = 01 -
OBC = 01 -
U.R.=01 For
-
Ex- serviceman
3. Dhobi 02 U.R. = 02 -
4. Barber 02 U.R. = 02 -
4. Besides this, column No. 4 under the heading educational qualification of the said requisition reads as under:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:57:47 :::HCHP 4(iv) They should possess knowledge of reading and writing and be Bonafide resident of District Kangra, Himachal .
Pradesh.
5. Neither any rejoinder has been filed to the reply so filed by respondents No.1 & 2 nor any steps have been taken for the service of of respondent No.4 despite opportunities having been granted by the State.
Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that respondent No.4 has been offered appointment on the basis of the requisition Annexure R-6, rt which clearly and expressly contemplated that the petitioner was to be bonafide resident of District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. This Court is not going into the validity of the condition because there is no challenge to the same either in the original writ petition or in any other mode or manner. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the requisition was only for bonafide resident of District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, no fault can be found with the act of the respondents of not offering appointment to the petitioner.
6. It has been further clarified in the reply filed by respondents No.1 & 2 that in fact no appointment has been offered even to respondent No.4 as respondent No.4 was permanent resident of District Chamba.
Relevant extract of the reply which clarifies this fact is quoted herein below:
(a) That in reply to this para it is submitted that the names of the petitioner and respondent No.4 were not considered by appointing authority on the ground that they were not the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:57:47 :::HCHP 5 resident of Kangra District as per the condition of requisition Annexure R-6.
.
(b). That in reply to this para it is submitted that the names of the petitioner and respondent No.4 were not considered by appointing authority on the ground that they were not the resident of Kangra District as per the condition of requisition Annexure R-6.
of
7. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, as there is no merit in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Pending rt miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
March 02, 2017 (Ajay Mohan Goel),
(rana) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:57:47 :::HCHP