Nageen Chander Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh Through
2022 Latest Caselaw 8762 HP

    1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                  ON THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022




                                                         .
                               BEFORE





                      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
                                  &





                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
                LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.178 of 2022

          Between:-





          NAGEEN CHANDER SHARMA,
          SON OF SHRI RAM KRISHAN SHARMA,
          AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT
          OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE,

          BARAGAON, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,

          DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.).                    ......APPELLANT

          (BY MR. ADARSH K. VASHISTA, ADVOCATE)

          AND



    1.    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH
          ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION)
          TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,




          SHIMLA 171002.
    2.    DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION SHIMLA,





          171001.
    3.    DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION,
          SHIMLA, (H.P.).
    4.    THE PRINCIPAL GSSS SHIWANG, TEHSIL





          KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.).
    5.    PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, GSSS
          SHIWANG, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT
          SHIMLA, (H.P.).
    6.    BHIM SINGH, SON OF SHRI KANSHI RAM,
          RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
          SUSH DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.).        ......RESPONDENTS

         (BY MR. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
         GENERAL, FOR R-1 TO R-4).
    ___________________________________________________




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2022 20:02:05 :::CIS
     2




          This Letters Patent Appeal coming on for orders this day,

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, delivered the following:




                                                                 .

                       JUDGMENT

CMP(M) No.1344/2022

Heard.

Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Delay in

filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA No.178/2022

Appellant has filed the Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the

order dated 2.5.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby

writ petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed.

2. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the

writ petition filed by the appellant. Appellant on coming to know about

the fact that the person who had been placed at serial number 1 of the

merit list, had not joined, had immediately approached the Tribunal by

filing the original application. Hence, there was no delay in filing the

original application. The post was liable to be offered to the appellant

as he was at serial number 2 in the merit list.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the

opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Appellant was

appointed as a Lecturer (Economics) under the PTA Policy in

Government Senior Secondary School, Baragaon, Tehsil Kumarsain,

District Shimla, on 27.7.2004. Services of the appellant stood

.

discontinued on 16.8.2004 as incumbent on regular basis had joined.

Thereafter, again process was initiated for filling up the post of Lecturer

(Economics) on PTA basis. Petitioner also applied for the same.

Admittedly, petitioner was at serial number 2 in the merit list. It is the

case of the appellant that the candidate who was at serial number 1 did

not join in pursuance to his appointment.

4. Appellant filed the original application in the year, 2016 before

the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, seeking direction

to the respondents to offer appointment to him against the post of

Lecturer (Economics) in Government Senior Secondary School,

Shiwang or any other post on PTA basis. After abolition of the Tribunal,

the original application was transferred to this Court.

5. Thus, the appellant had approached the Tribunal after a gap of

nine years from the conclusion of the selection process. Learned

Single Judge rightly held that the original application filed by the

appellant was belated. Moreover, it was the case of the respondents

that in pursuance to the result declared with regard to the selection

process which had been initiated in the year, 2007, none had been

offered appointment. Hence, learned Single Judge rightly held that the

appellant could not claim a vested right for his appointment as in

pursuance to the selection process which had been initiated in the

year, 2007, none had been appointed.

.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ

petition filed by the appellant had, thus, been rightly dismissed by the

learned Single Judge.

7. Hence, no ground for interference, is made out.

8. Dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

( Sabina ) Judge

( Sushil Kukreja)

Judge October 21, 2022 (ks)