Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suman Devi vs State Of H.P. & Others on 22 July, 2015
Bench: Sanjay Karol, P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 9951 of 2014 a/w
CWP No. 9952 of 2014
Decided on: 22.7.2015
.
1. CWP No. 9951 of 2014
Suman Devi ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others ....Respondents.
2. CWP No. 9952 of 2014
Sarswati Devi ....Petitioner
of
versus
State of H.P. & others ....Respondents.
_____________________________________________________________
Coram rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting or not?1
For the petitioners: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary and Mr. V.S.
Chauhan, Additional Advocates General,
for respondent-State.
Mr. Des Raj Thakur, CGC, for
respondent No. 4 in both the petitions.
Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No. 5 in CWP No. 9951 of
2014.
Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for
respondents No. 5 and 6 in CWP No.
9952 of 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners invites our attention to a decision, passed by a Coordinate Bench of 1 Whether local reporters` of the newspapers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:37:16 :::HCHP 2this Court in CWP No. 5404 of 2014 titled Manjeeta and others vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 5.1.2015 along with other connected matters, which reads as under:-
"All these writ petitions pertain to the selection and .
appointment to be made under the Scheme known as 'Accredited Social Health Activist'.
2. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners are successful candidates in the selection process undertaken in the year 2007 and also have undergone training, but were not given appointments, constraining of them and the similarly situated persons, to file writ petitions before this Court, which were granted on 21st November, 2013, vide judgment passed in CWP No.8856 rt of 2013 and other connected matters. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said judgment hereunder:
"2. We find that apprehension of the petitioners is not well-founded, for the simple reason that communication/order dated 19.10.2013 itself clarifies that the ASHA workers who were selected and have undergone training in the year 2007, would be selected, provided that they fulfill the eligibility criteria. In this communication, State has given number of ASHA workers as 531. As per the petitioners, the number is more than that. We are not going into the correctness of the numbers, as it is for the authorities to ascertain information and correctly identify such persons.
3.We deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petitions, with a direction to the State, to consider names of such ASHA Workers, who were selected and had undergone training in the year 2007 itself.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:37:16 :::HCHP 3
However, their further selection shall be subject to the fulfillment of eligibility criteria, as stipulated in communication dated 19.10.2013."
3. It is stated that the respondents have not given them appointment despite their selection.
.
4. The respondents have not denied the said fact specifically in their reply(s). All the replies are vague.
5. Prima facie, it appears that the respondents have tried to give a slip to law. Less said is better. However, we deem it proper to exercise restraint at this of stage and dispose of such writ petitions with a direction to the respondents-State to comply with the directions contained in the judgment, referred to supra, if not rt already complied with, and file compliance report before the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of two weeks from today.
6. In the second group of writ petitions, the petitioners have stated that, though they have participated in the selection process in the year 2007, made the grade, but were not deputed to undergo training and, therefore, have prayed that the respondents be directed to depute them for training and make their appointment.
7. A perusal of the judgment referred to supra shows that this relief has not been granted in the said judgment and also the writ petitioners have not questioned the same. It is beaten law of the land that the relief specifically not granted is deemed to have been denied.
8. However, we deem it proper to dispose of this group of petitions by providing that the concerned writ petitioners are at liberty to file representation(s) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:37:16 :::HCHP 4 before the competent Authority for the redressal of their grievances, who shall consider the same sympathetically and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation(s).
9. The third group of writ petitions involves .
those petitioners who have participated in the recent selection process, which was kept on hold by the Government, as stated by the learned Advocate General before this Court on 16th December, 2013, and on the basis of which CWP No.9333 of 2013 and other connected matters, were disposed of vide order dated of 16th December, 2013.
10. This Court has passed interim direction in some of the writ petitions commanding the respondents rt to go ahead with the selection process, but not to finalize the same. The stand of the respondents-State is that they have taken the said selection process to its logical end and only the selection list is to be issued.
11. In the given circumstances, the said writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to issue the selection list and take all steps which are required, after issuing the said selection list.
12. All the writ petitions are disposed of as indicated above, alongwith the pending CMPs, if any."
2. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners' cases are similarly situated and as such, petitioners shall also approach the respondents by making representation with a request to impart training, within a period of two weeks from today.
3. Leaving all questions of law open, present petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:37:16 :::HCHP 5 consider and decide petitioners' representation/request, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Order assigning reasons shall be communicated to the .
petitioners. Directions issued in CWP No. 5404 of 2014 titled Manjeeta and others vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 5.1.2015 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present petitions also.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
of
(Sanjay Karol)
rt Judge
22nd July, 2015 (P.S. Rana)
(kck) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:37:16 :::HCHP