Dharminder Singh vs State Of H.P. And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 18 HP

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                    CWP No. 5311 of 2020
                                                    Date of Decision: 01.01.2021




                                                                                      .
           Dharminder Singh                                             .....Petitioner
                                             Versus





           State of H.P. and ors.                                      ......Respondents
           Coram





          The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
          The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

           Whether approved for reporting?1         Yes.

           For the petitioner:               Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.





           For the respondents:              Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy. AG, for respondent No. 1.
                                             Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate, for respondents
                                             No. 2 and 3.
                                             (Through video conference)

           Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)

In pursuance to an advertisement notice, borne in

Annexure P-3, the writ petitioner submitted his documents, for the

apposite advertised post. The afore advertisement, appertains to

recruitment(s) therethrough, being made to the post of Junior

T/Mate/Junior Helper (Sub-Station)/Junior Helper (Power House) (E).

The imperative thereto educational qualifications, hence to be

possessed by the aspirants concerned, become, borne in Annexure P-3.

Moreover, in Annexure P-3, a, note exists qua, none of the aspirants,

being amenable to face a personal interview, effect whereof shall

become dwelt upon subsequently.

2. A perusal of Page Number 11, of, the Paper Book of

Annexure P-3, discloses that, 60 marks were allocable to the aspirants

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

concerned, for theirs, possessing matriculation certificate, and 25

marks were allocable to the aspirants concerned, hence possessing the

technical qualification of ITI Electrician/Wireman, from the

.

institution(s), recognized from the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

In pursuance thereof, the respondents concerned, proceeded to award

the afore marks to the writ petitioner. However, thereonwards, after

the writ petitioner becoming selected, he was provisionally appointed

to the advertised post. Nonetheless, his appointment become

rescinded on the ground that, on the date of filing of the application

form, by the writ petitioner, inasmuch as, 28.08.2018, he did not

possess the technical qualification, of, ITI Electrician/Wireman,

whereupon, marks allocated to him qua therewith becoming flawed.

3. Moreover, a perusal of the scribed instructions, placed on

record, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.

2 and 3, discloses, that since the writ petitioner, on 28.08.2018, did

not posses, the prescribed technical qualification, hence, 25 marks

were not allocable to him, under the afore head. However, the afore

submission(s), would hold vigour, only upon the respondents, adhering

to the note existing, in Annexure P-3, wherethrough, a complete

forbiddance, become cast against the respondents, for theirs, rather

asking the aspirants concerned, to, face, a, personal interview; (i)

whereupon the afore note, upon, becoming adhered to, and also hence

immediately subsequently, to, receipt of the application form(s), would

facilitate, the process of scrutinizing the apposite documents, rather

occurring thereat, (ii) whereupon, if thereat the writ petitioner was not

holding the afore technical qualification, he would not hold any ground,

.

to invalidate Annexure P-10. However, the afore process of scrutinizing

the apposite documents, did not evidently occur in quick spontaneity,

to, 28.08.2018, nor the respondents concerned adhered to the note

existing in Annexure P-3, wherethrough, a complete forbiddance

become(s) cast against the respondents, for theirs, hence asking the

aspirants concerned, to, face, a, personal interview, before the

Selection Committee concerned. Contrarily, as unfolded by Annexure P-

5, hence drawn on 16.02.2019, the writ petitioner was asked to face,

a, personal interview, on 25.02.2019, and since thereat he possessed

the apposite technical qualification, and also when obviously, rather,

thereat the selection process, did not terminate, (a) thereupon, it was

legally insagacious, for the respondents to, merely, upon, an

unadhered note, borne in Annexure P-3, and/or his not on 24.8.2018,

possessing the desired technical educational qualification, and,

wherethrough, 25 marks become allotted to him, under the head

appertaining to the desired technical education, rather to subsequently

rescind the afore apposite allocation(s), (b) conspicuously and

reiteratedly, when they rather did not in quick spontaneity thereto,

hence enter into the process of scrutinizing the apposite documents,

rather, prolonged the process of scrutinizing the documents, upto,

16.02.2019. In aftermath, if the afore prolongation has occurred, its

beneficial effects accrue, to, the petitioner.

4. Consequently, there is merit in the extant writ petition,

.

and, the same is allowed, and the impugned Annexure(s) is/are

quashed and set aside. All pending applications are disposed of.

(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge

st 1 January, 2021.

      (CS/raman)
                            r               to  (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
                                                          Judge