Kuldeep Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15530 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7303 of 2023 Date of Decision: October 5, 2023 _______________________________________________________

.

    Kuldeep Chand                                                                       .......Petitioner





                                   Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh and another      ... Respondents

_______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate.

For the Respondents Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocates General.

_______________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 3.10.2023

(Annexure P-4), passed by Director Higher Education, whereby

representation having been filed by the petitioner in compliance to order

dated 29.8.2023 passed in CWP No. 5886 of 2023 titled Kuldeep Chand v.

State of Himachal Pradesh, came to be rejected, petitioner has approached

this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying therein set aside the aforesaid order, on the ground that

authority concerned, while passing the same, has nowhere assigned any

reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner, rather by simply taking note

of the submissions of the petitioner, said authority proceeded to reject the

representation of the petitioner.

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

2. Having perused impugned order dated 3.10.2023, Mr. Rajan Kahol,

learned Additional Advocate General fairly admits that the authority

concerned, while passing the impugned order dated 3.10.2023, has failed to

.

assign any reasons as such, order in question, not being sustainable

deserves to be set aside.

3. Consequently , in view of above, without going into merits of the

case, order dated 3.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside and

respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner

afresh, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two days from today, as

per clause 5.4 of Comprehensive Guiding Principles, wherein a provision

has been made qua postings/adjustments of the couples working under the

State Government.

4. Since petitioner in his representation has pointed out certain

vacancies in certain schools, authority concerned, while considering

representation of the petitioner, may consider posting the petitioner against

any one of such posts, if vacant and there is no other technical hitch.

5. Compliance of the order be reported by respondent No.2 on the next

date of hearing.

List for compliance on 9.10.2023.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 5, 2023 (vikrant)