Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 03.07.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 3 July, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:4523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 5545 of 2024
Decided on: 03.07.2024
Praveen Kumar ... Petitioner
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner : Mr.Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
with Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur,
Additional Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate
General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very
kindly be issued to the Respondents for taking over the
services of the Petitioner as Trainer Electronics Mech. I.T.I.
in the Respondent Department in view of the
Policy/Notification, dated 03.10.2015, in the interest of
justice.
ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his
service as per policy adopted by the State Government
(Annexure P-5) alongwith all consequential benefits."
3. Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of
the Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in CWP No.540 of 2019, titled Sanjeev Kumar and others vs.
State of H.P. and another, alongwith connected matters, decided on
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
10.07.2019, and submitted that the issue is no more res integra and
Hon'ble Division Bench already held that the relief as is being prayed
for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also
learned Advocate General, this Court concurs with the submissions
made by learned Advocate General.
5. The prayer of the petitioner is that a mandamus be
issued to the respondents to take over his services as Trainer
Electronics Mechanical, I.T.I., in the respondent-Department in light
of Notification dated 03.10.2015. Notification dated 03.10.2015,
which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-5, inter alia, was
to the effect that the Government took a one time decision to take
over the services of all the teaching and non teaching employees
engaged on contract basis through Student Welfare Fund, Institute
Management Committee(s) and under other schemes upto
31.07.2015, i.e. the date of closing of academic year 2014-2015 in
Government Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics and Industrial
Training Institutes of the Department of Technical Education
Vocational and Industrial Training on contract basis after completion
of seven years of 9600 hours whichever is earlier as one time
measure, in the public interest, with immediate effect.
6. Now, the petitioner in the present case was engaged as
Trainer Electronics Mechanical on 23.09.2015, i.e. after the cut of
date mentioned in the Notification. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that as the process for engagement of the
petitioner stood initiated before 31.07.2015, therefore, he is covered
under the Notification is worth negation. This is for the reason that
in terms of Notification dated 03.10.2015, the right of taking over of
.
the services was conferred upon the teaching and non teaching
employees who were fulfilling the condition of seven years or 9600
hours of service as on 31.07.2015. In fact, this has been so held by
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and Hon'ble Division Bench
has been further pleased to hold that the Court cannot be a party to
the conversion of one time measure issued by the Government, that
too at the instance of the High Court, to be a permanent measure.
Hon'ble Division Bench also held that the State being a modal
employer is obliged to to make appointments to public services only
in accordance with statutory rules and all appointments made
otherwise then in accordance with Recruitment & Promotion Rules
strike at the very root of the quality guaranteed under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment of the
petitioner against the post in issue is not as per the Recruitment &
Promotion Rules. The Notification being relied upon by the petitioner
does not covers him. Therefore, no relief as is being prayed for by the
petitioner can be granted to him.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, so also the
pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 03, 2024
(Rishi)
