Himachal Pradesh High Court

Anshul Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 4 March, 2021

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.




                                                                        .
                                         CWPOA No. 7813 of 2019





                                         Decided on: 04.03.2021





    Anshul Sharma                                     .....Petitioner.
                                 Versus
    State of H.P. & anr.                              .....Respondents.





    Coram
    Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioner           :       Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

    For the respondents          :       Mr. Anil Jaswal, Addl. AG with Mr. Amit


                                         Dhumal, Dy. AG and Mr. Manoj Bagga,
                                         Asstt. AG.




    Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral)

Instant writ petition has been filed for following

substantive prayer:-

"I) That the respondents may kind be

directed to grant seniority, salary and increments

to the applicant from the year of 2012 when the

two other candidates those are at serial no. 2

and 3 of the merit list in the interest of law equity

and justice."

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2(i) The petitioner under went selection process for

appointment to the post of Lecturer in Automobile Engineering,

Class-I (Gazetted) in the department of Technical Education

during the year 2012. The Himachal Pradesh Public Service

Commission on 16.8.2012 recommended his name at serial No. 1

in order of merit for appointment along with two other

candidates at serial Nos. 2 and 3.

2(ii) to Despite his name having been recommended by the

H.P. Public Service Commission, the respondent-State did not

issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the ground

that he did not possess the essential qualification for the post.

This compelled the petitioner to institute CWP No. 2007 of 2013,

which was decided on 10.4.2015. In the judgment, it was

observed that while refusing to issue the appointment order in

favour of the petitioner, the respondent-State had not taken into

consideration the equivalence certificate in respect of his

qualification. It is apt to extract following paragraphs from the

aforesaid judgment dealing with the factual position of the case:-

"6. The Public Service Commission, after examining the documents and the qualification certificates of the petitioner, found him eligible and permitted him to appear in the written examination. He made the grade in the written examination and successfully made the grade in the interview also.

7. The Public Service Commission scrutinized the application and found all the papers in order and made

recommendation for selection. How can the respondents make 'U'-turn and deny him the appointment

.

8. The petitioner has placed on record equivalence

certificate issued by the Lovely Professional University, Annexure P6, which clearly indicates that B. Tech. in Automobile Engineering is equivalent to B. Tech. in

Mechanical Engineering. It is apt to reproduce paras 1 and 2 of the said certificate herein.

"(i) This is in reference to your advertisement for

lecturer in Automobile on HPPSC website. The program B. Tech in Mechanical Engineering (Lateral Entry) from Lovely Professional University (LPU) has been mapped against B. Tech in r Automobile Engineering (Lateral Entry) from

JawaharLal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (Annexure-1). The overall Curriculum of B. Tech in Mechanical Engineering (Lateral Entry) offered by LPU is at par with B. Tech in

Automobile Engineering (Lateral Entry) offered by JawaharLal Nehru Technological University. More than 75% of courses of B. Tech in Mechanical

Engineering (Lateral Entry) from Lovely Professional University(LPU) and B. Tech in

Automobile Engineering (Lateral Entry) from JawaharLal Nehru Technological University,

Hyderabad are same.

(ii) As you know LPU has been established by the State Legislature of Govt. of Punjab vide Act No. 25 of 2005 (Annexure-2), it has also been recognized by UGC under Section 2 (f) of UGC Act, 1956 by notification NO. F.9-10/2006 (CPP1) and is included in the list of universities maintained by UGC (Annexure-3). Besides, LPU is also a member of Association of Indian Universities (AIU; Annexure-4). LPU is a statuary University set up through Punjab Legislative and thus degrees are awarded by LPU stand registered. The students

graduating from LPU are being admitted to institution of Higher education in all parts of the

.

world"

9. The said certificate has not been taken into consideration by respondents No. 1 and 2. The entire exercise made by the respondents amounts to taking away

the legitimate right of the petitioner. When the concerned University, i.e., the expert body has stated that qualification of B. Tech in Automobile Engg. is equivalent to the qualification of B. Tech. in Mechanical Engineering, and

that is why the said certificate was accepted by the Public Service Commission, then how can it lie in the mouth of respondents No. 1 and 2 that it is not equivalent and petitioner was not eligible to participate in the selection

process."

Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and

respondents were directed to consider the recommendation

made by the Public Service Commission on 16.8.2012 and to

pass appropriate order thereupon within a period of four weeks.

2(iii) Subsequently, The Himachal Pradesh Public Service

Commission on 23.4.2013 cancelled the candidature of petitioner

for appointment to the post in question. On that basis, the

request of the petitioner for appointment was also rejected by

respondent No. 1 on 22.5.2015.

2(iv) It appears from the record that Public Service

Commission yet again on 20.6.2015 withdrew its decision as

conveyed in letter dated 23.4.2015 with regard to cancellation of

candidature of the petitioner and re-iterated its earlier

recommendation dated 16.8.2012 whereby the petitioner was

recommended at serial No. 1 in order of merit for appointment to

the post in question.

2(v) Since the petitioner was still not appointed to the

post, therefore, he was once again compelled to institute CWP

No. 2953 of 2015. During pendency of the second writ petition, a

statement was made on behalf of respondent-State that

petitioner has been asked to undergo medical examination and

thereafter he shall be offered the appointment letter.

basis of this statement, this writ petition was disposed of on

1.7.2015 as having become infructuous.

On the

3. Finally a notification was issued on 14.7.2015

appointing the petitioner as Lecturer (Automobile Engineering) in

department of Technical Education. The grievance of the

petitioner now is that for no fault of his, the appointment order

was not issued to him at the relevant time despite his having

been selected and recommended at Serial No. 1 in order of merit

by the H.P. Public Service Commission on 16.8.2012. It was only

subsequent to his filing CWP No. 2007 of 2013 (decided on

10.4.2015) and CWP No. 2953 of 2015 that appointment letter

was issued in his favour on 14.7.2015. Therefore, learned

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner deserves

to be granted seniority, salary and increments against the post

in question from the year 2012 when he was selected and

recommended for the post in question along with other two

candidates who were selected along with him and were at serial

Nos. 2 and 3 in the order of merit .

Learned Additional Advocate General argued that

petitioner could not be appointed earlier as he did not possess

the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement. He

also submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the monetary

benefits of salary and increments prior to his actual appointment

on the post in question.

    4.          It    is
                          rnot   in    to
                                      dispute   that   H.P.

Commission had recommended the name of the petitioner for Public Service

appointment to the post in question at Serial No. 1 in order of

merit along with two other candidates on 16.8.2012. The

candidates at serial Nos. 2 and 3 were appointed, whereas the

petitioner was not offered the appointment on the ground that he

did not possess the essential qualification required for the post.

The ground was negatived by this Court in judgment rendered on

10.4.2015 in CWP No. 2007 of 2013. It was only during another

round of litigation, initiated by the petitioner, that the

respondent implemented the judgment and issued notification

on 14.7.2015 appointing him to the post but with immediate

effect. In my considered opinion, petitioner was not at fault for

non-issuance of appointment letter in his favour at the relevant

time. Fault for delaying his appointment lies with the

respondent. In this regard, it would be apt to re-produce

paragraph-6 of the rely filed by respondents No. 1 and 2:

.

6. That the replying respondent after verification of character and antecedents report and medical examination of the applicant, offered appointment vide notification

dated 14.7.2015, with immediate effect, as the applicant had not actually worked from back date. There is no dispute of seniority. The seniority in respect of direct recruits is fixed on the basis of merit of the Commission

and the applicant undisputedly stands at Serial No. 1 and he will be offered seniority as per recommendations of the Commission, above the other candidates at Sr. No. 2 and 3, appointed from the same Panel, after his regularization,

when seniority list will be prepared/circulated The

applicant had not worked actually before the date of appointment viz 14.7.2015, as Lecture (Automobile Engineering), therefore, question of payment of salary does not arise on the basis of principle of "no work no pay". No

doubt, there is no fault of the applicant for non issuing of appointment letter in his favour and he was offered appointment in the year 2015 inspite of the fact that

recommendation was made in the year 2012. But the matter remained under examination/sub-judice due to

technical reasons and equivalency of his qualification. The replying respondent considering this aspect, on the receipt

of such representation from the applicant, may take up the mater with Advisory Departments of the Government regarding granting him notional increment and granting him benefit of deemed appointment from the same date, when his juniors were offered appointment."

A reading of above paragraph shows that

respondents are themselves aware of and concede the fact that

the petitioner was not at fault for his delayed appointment. It is

also the stand of the respondents that petitioner would be

offered seniority as per recommendation of the H.P. Publice

Service commission above the other candidates at serial Nos. 2

.

and 3 appointed from the same panel, where name of petitioner

figures at serial No. 1.

For all the aforesaid reasons, present is a fit case for

granting the petitioner notional seniority along with notional

benefits of increments by deeming his appointment from the

Commission on 16.8.2012.

same date when his juniors were offered the appointment

pursuant to the recommendation made by the H.P. Public Service

According, the writ petition is

allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner

notional seniority, notional increments/benefits resulting from his

deemed appointment from the same date when his juniors were