Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar vs State Of H.P. Through on 23 August, 2021
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Justice, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 575 of 2012
Between :-
VIJAY KUMAR,
S/O SH. DES RAJ,
VILLAGE AND P.O. RAJA KA TALAB,
TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,
H.P.
...APPELLANT
(BY MR. SANJEEV BHUSHAN,
SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR. RAKESH CHAUHAN,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
SECRETARY (EDUCATION),
GOVERNMENT OF H.P.,
SHIMLA-2.
2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
H.P., SHIMLA.
...RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:56:01 :::CIS
2
(BY BY MR. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH
MR. RANJAN SHARMA, MR. VIKAS
RATHORE, MS. RITTA GOSWAMI,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS
AND MS. SEEMA SHARMA,
.
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
____________________________________________________
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
The respondents changed the seniority position
earlier assigned to the appellant. He unsuccessfully challenged
this action before the learned Single Judge, hence instant appeal
has been preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant.
2. The appellant joined as Trained Graduate Teacher
(Medical) on 18.12.1993. It is the case of the appellant that on
account of shortage of lecturers, the appellant was also assigned
the responsibility of teaching as a lecturer (School cadre).
3. The seniority list of lecturer (School cadre) was
issued on 01.08.1997 wherein name of the appellant was
reflected at Sr. No. 1318. His date of appointment as lecturer was
shown as 18.12.1993.
4. On the recommendations of Departmental Promotion
Committee, the appellant was confirmed as lecturer on
19.06.2003. The date of appointment of the appellant as lecturer
was reflected as 18.12.1993.
5. On 20.06.2003, final seniority list of lecturers (School
cadre), as it stood on 31.12.2001, was circulated. The appellant
figured in this list at Sr. No. 665. In July, 2007, the respondents
.
issued a corrigendum changing seniority placement of the
appellant from Sr. No. 665 to 2433-A. This action was
unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant before the learned
Single Judge.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant was possessing the qualification of lecturer. It is for this
reason, he was posted as a lecturer on 18.12.1993. Therefore,
his seniority as lecturer should have been considered w.e.f.
18.12.1993 instead of his date of promotion as lecturer on
15.05.1996. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the
respondents supported the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge and submitted that the appellant was appointed as
TGT (Medical) on 18.12.1993. The respondents had incorrectly
assigned the seniority of lecturer to the appellant from
18.12.1993. This mistake was realized by the respondents while
defending an O.A.(D) No. 526 of 2006. Accordingly, a
corrigendum was issued in July, 2007 rectifying the error. The
appellant as a consequence was assigned correct seniority No.
2433-A instead of 665.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed
as TGT (Medical). He joined as such on 18.12.1993. From the
pleadings, it appears that the appellant was assigned the work of
lecturer due to scarcity of lecturers. The appellant was promoted
as lecturer on 15.05.1996 and posted against the post of lecturer
.
(School cadre). In the office order dated 15.05.1996, appellant's
date of appointment has been shown as 17.12.1993, however, it
has not been specified therein as to whether 17.12.1993 is the
date of appointment of the appellant as TGT(Medical) or that of
lecturer. In the office order dated 19.06.2003, appellant's date of
appointment as school lecturer has been shown as 18.12.1993.
His date of confirmation as school lecturer has been shown as
18.12.1995. In the seniority list circulated on 20.06.2003,
depicting the position as on 31.12.2001, the appellant has been
placed at Sr. No. 665 with his date of appointment as school
lecturer as 18.12.1993. This is obviously incorrect. The appellant
was not appointed as lecturer (School cadre) on 18.12.1993. He
was appointed as TGT(Medical) on 17.12.1993. He joined as
such on 18.12.1993. He was assigned the work of lecturer
(School cadre) due to prevailing circumstances. The appellant
was neither appointed nor posted as lecturer in his own right
w.e.f. 17.12.1993. Pursuant to the recommendations of the DPC,
the appellant was promoted as lecturer (School cadre) on
15.05.1996. Therefore, the seniority of the appellant as lecturer
assigned to him at Sr. No. 665 by treating his appointment as
lecturer w.e.f. 17.12.1993 has no foundation. The appellant was
not entitled to seniority as lecturer from 17.12.1993. The
respondents were justified in rectifying the mistake and re-
drawing his seniority after considering his correct date of
.
appointment as lecturer. Even otherwise, the appellant has not
impleaded the persons as parties to the petition who would be
eventually affected in case the relief prayed for by him is granted
to him. The action of the respondents in changing the incorrect
seniority position earlier assigned to the appellant was justified.
No interference with the judgment passed by the learned Single
Jude is called for.
Consequently, this appeal lacks merit and the same
is accordingly dismissed alongwith the pending applications, if
any.
( Ravi Malimath )
Acting Chief Justice
23rd August, 2021 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
Judge
