Himachal Pradesh High Court
Station vs The State Of Hiamchal on 13 August, 2021
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
Reserved on:- 6th August, 2021.
Reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
ON THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO. 6316
OF 2019.
Between:-
SH. AMAR NATH SON OF
LATE SH. SHIV RAM, R/O
VILLAGE PELELA, POST
OFFICE MANJHWAR, TEHSIL
GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT
BILASPUR, PRESENTLY
WORKING AS ASSISTANT SUB
INSPECTOR (ASI) AT POLICE
STATION, SADAR, SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH
....PETITIONER.
(BY Mr. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF HIAMCHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
(HOME) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.
SHIMLA-171002.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:56 :::CIS
...2...
.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-2.
3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE ARMED
POLICE AND TRAINING, H.P.
SHIMLA-171002.
4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE,
r POLICE TRAINING
COLLEGE, DAROH, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P.
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
POLICE TRAINING COLLEGE,
DAROH, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
....RESPONDENTS.
(BY MR. HEMANT VAID,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL WITH MR. VIKRANT
CHANDEL AND MR. GAURAV
SHARMA, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERALS.)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:56 :::CIS
...3...
.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
Through the office order made on 31.10.2015, the
respondent concerned declined the petitioner's representation for
revaluation of his answer sheet(s). Consequently, the petitioner
becomes aggrieved therefrom, and, is led to institute the extant petition
before this Court.
2. Through, the extant petition, the petitioner seeks the
annulment of the afore drawn office order, comprised in Annexure A-7.
The rejection of the writ petitioner's claim was made, in pursuance to
the standing orders No. 1 of 2016. The afore standing orders are borne
in Annexure A-4. If, upon, a perusal of Annexure A-4, it is apparent,
that there exists a revaluation clause, thereupon, the writ petition would
succeed. However a careful and close perusal of Annexure A-4, does
unfold, that there occurs no provision for revaluation of the answer
sheets, as, became attempted by the writ petitioner. In the absence of a
specific, and, explicit provision with respect to the revaluation of the
...4...
.
answer sheets of the writ petitioner, this Court cannot grant him the
espoused relief.
3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner, has, yet argued with much vigour before this Court, that
Annexure A-5, carries in Rule 12 thereof, hence provisions for
revaluation of the answer sheets of the examinees concerned, the
relevant portion whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:-
" 12. Examination of answer books and publication of
result:-
1) The Secretary will cause the answer books of various
papers examined by the examiners appointed under Rule
11(1) and the Examiners shall prepare an award lis on the
prescribed form and forward the same to the Secretary along
with the answer books.
2) The result will be complied by the Secretary on the receipt
of award lists and will be placed before the Chairman for
approval with such recommendations, as he may deem
necessary.
3) (i) Marks will be conveyed to all the examinees in their
result card. If a candidate feels that his/her answer sheet
has not been fairly evaluated and his/her score is not
less than 40% he/she may within 21 days from the date
of issue of the result card by the Board of Departmental
Examination, apply to the Secretary, Board of
Departmental Examination on a simple application
...5...
accompanied by result card in original and the
.
prescribed fee at Rs.100/- per paper in the shape of
Bank Draft payable in favour of Director, HIPA,
Fairlawns, Shimla-171012.
(ii) An examiner other than the one who had originally
evaluated will re-evaluate the Answer Sheet and
average of the two awards shall be the final award in
case the variation (increase or decrease)in the two
awards is not more than 10% of the maximum marks
allotted to the papers...."
Thereafter, he argues that through Annexure A-5, the embodiments
contained in Annexure A-7 become underwhelmed, and, consequently
he argues that this Court be constrained to annul Annexure A-7.
4. However, the afore submission is/are a gross mis-
striving(s), as the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has not read
Rule 2 appertaining to the Commencement and Application of the
mandate carried in Annexure A-5. A deepest reading of Rule 2, as,
borne in Annexure A-5, and as, appertaining to apposite
Commencement and Application, unfolds, that it is made applicable to
only (i) the members of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services; (ii)
the members of Himachal Pradesh Forest Services; (iii) Tehsildars and
Naib-Tehsildars; (iv) all other gazetted officers working in connection
...6...
.
with the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh not included in Clauses
(i) to (iii) above; (v) Superintendent grade-II and Sr. Assistants of H.P.
Govt. (Non Gazetted) and (vi) all such other Non Gazetted officials who
have put in not less than 10 years of regular service in connection with
the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh, whose next promotion or
placement as and when it takes place shall put them in a Gazetted rank,
or (vii) any other class or category of officers which may be included by
the Government from time to time.
5. A perusal of the afore Rule 2 of Annexure A-5, as,
appertaining to its Commencement and Application, reveals rather its
making explicit echoings of categories of officers working under the
Government of Himachal Pradesh, and, whereto whom it becomes
applicable. It does imminently bring to the fore, the factum that the
members of the Himachal Pradesh Police Services, as, is the writ
petitioner, rather not finding any reference therein. Consequently, since
a specific inclusion of the members of the Himachal Pradesh Police
services is required to be made in Rule 2, appertaining to
Commencement and Application of Annexure A-5, hence, when there is
no specific, and, explicit narration qua applicability thereof, to the
...7...
.
members of Himachal Pradesh Police Service. Therefore, this Court
cannot draw any judicial verdict to include the members of Himachal
Pradesh Police Service within the ambit of Rule 2, appertaining to the
relevant Commencement, and, application, of Annexure A-5, as,
thereupon, this Court would re-enact the afore exhaustive inclusion
relevant provisions.
r to
therein, and, thereafter would impermissibly proceed to re-enact the
6. Be that as it may, even though, in Rule 2, appertaining to
commencement and application of Annexure P-5, there occurs a
reference that it is made applicable to all other non gazetted officials
working in connection with the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh,
hence not included in clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 2 whose next promotion
or placement as and when it takes place shall put them in a Gazetted
rank. Therefore, it is contended that the effect of non occurrence, in the
standing orders, as, drawn by the respondents of any provisions of
apposite re-evaluation(s), becomes waned, and, rather the provisions
(supra) carried in Annexure A-5, would become available to the writ
petitioner. However, if clause (iv) of Rule 2, of Annexure A-5, is to be
made workable, vis-a-vis, the petitioner, thereupon, clear and candid
...8...
.
evidence was required to exist on record, and, its making a trite display,
that the writ petitioner is a non gazetted official(s), and, hence, in his
rendering service as a Police Officer, he is rendering service rather
connected with the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh, and that on
his next promotion or placement as and when it takes place shall put him
in a Gazetted rank. However, for want of afore evidence, in support
thereof, both the afore twin conditions though become not satiated by
the petitioner, and, though this Court cannot purvey the benefit of
Clause (iv) of Rule 2, embodied in Annexure A-5, to, the petitioner.
However, merely for the afore wants this court would not render the
paling into insignificance rather the amplitude and plenitude of
provisions supra. Conspicuously, also when it therethrough covers
within its ambit, the members of the Himachal Pradesh Police, and, who
obviously render service in connection with the affairs of the State of
Himachal Pradesh. Further it also eclipses the effect, if any, of non
existence of any clause for revaluation in the apposite standing orders.
Therefore, for meteing the apposite benefit to the writ petitioner, dehors
want of his adducing evidence (supra), the respondents are directed to
after ensuring that the mandate (supra) becomes complied with, vis-a-
...9...
.
vis, the petitioner, hence within two weeks from today, re-evaluate the
answer sheets of the petitioner, and, also disclose the results thereof to
him.
7. Therefore, this Court grants the espoused relief to the writ
petitioner. Consequently, there is merit in the extant writ petition, and, it
stand disposed of.
r to
with condition (supra) hence allowed. All pending applications also
(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge
13th August, 2021.
(jai)
