Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 16.10.2024 vs State Of H.P. And Another on 16 October, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:9957
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 10975 of 2024
Decided on: 16.10.2024
Sanjay Kumar and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and another ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioners : M/s Shikha Raja, Aditi Rana and
Tara Devi, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have
primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-
"11) That the petitioner, therefore, prays that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased:-
(a) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order
or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent
department to treat the petitioners as having been
appointed in the year 2002 with all consequential
benefits for all purposes and intents;
(b) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
nature thereof to give full justice to the petitioners in the
circumstances of the case and may pass such further
writ, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit,
proper, just and expedient in the circumstances of the
case."
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:9957
2. The case of the petitioners is that they have participated
in the process of selection against the post of TGT in the year 2002.
The process was not taken to its logical conclusion. Thereafter, the
posts of TGTs were advertised afresh in the year 2005. The
petitioners participated in the said process and were successful in
the same. Their contention is that as persons who participated in
the process that was undertaken in the year 2002, have been given
the benefit from the date of the process of said recruitment by this
Court, in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.
3435 of 2020, therefore, the petitioners also be granted the same
benefit.
3. Learned Law Officer points out that that the case of a
similar petitioner, praying for the same reliefs, i.e. CWP No. 9177 of
2024 has already been dismissed by this Court. He has handed over
a copy of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 9177 of 2024,
titled as Smt. Salochana Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, decided on 05.09.2024.
4. The plea of the petitioners is that a mandamus be
issued directing the respondents to offer them appointment by
granting deemed regularization to them against the posts in issue, in
terms of the judgment passed in CWP(OA) No.3435 of 2020, titled
Satish Kumar & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others.
5. In my considered view, this petition is completed
2024:HHC:9957
misconceived and has no merit per se. It is a matter of record that
when the process initiated in the year 2002 was not taken to its
logical conclusion, the petitioners did not approach any Court of Law
agitating this issue. Again in the year 2004/2005, fresh process was
initiated to fill up the posts of TGT (Medical), the petitioners
participated in the said process and were selected in the same and
were offered appointment and engaged on regular basis in the month
of June, 2006.
6. The prayer of the petitioners that they are covered by
the judgment of this Court, passed in CWP(OA) No.3435 of 2020,
titled Satish Kumar & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
others, is completely misconceived. Satish Kumar, who had
participated in the process of recruitment in the year 2002, had
approached learned Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by the fact that no
appointment letters were being issued to the successful candidates.
However, before the decision in the Original Application, Satish
Kumar was offered appointment by the Department on the basis of
the process initiated in the year 2002.
7. This was done on the basis of a decision taken by the
Department that medical trained graduate teachers be appointed if
they withdrew the cases filed by them and those incumbents
including Satish Kumar, who withdrew their case, were offered
appointment from the due date.
2024:HHC:9957
8. The petitioners did not approach any Court of law
thereafter also within some reasonable time and has now filed this
case at a belated stage, as evidently they were satisfied with their
appointments which were offered to them in the subsequent process
in the year 2006. It is reiterated that the appointment that was
offered to Satish Kumar was not on the basis of the subsequent
process of recruitment undertaken by the Department, but on the
basis of the earlier recruitment process undertaken in the year
2002. Therefore, it cannot be said that as petitioners are similarly
situated as Satish Kumar, they have to be offered appointment in
terms of the earlier process.
9. Accordingly, as this Court does not find any merit in the
present Writ petition the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
October 16, 2024
(narender)
BHUPEND
DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA,
Phone=04d8bcd7412dcb18b7b081df02fb3b89ecc4a0c8f8a66ab972
85dc56e62d41fe, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh,
SERIALNUMBER=2ccc91b5122501da0ce3678b0e2b7bd5fa9b0993
7769da5501e1f4e7ad448bc5, CN=BHUPENDER KUMAR
ER KUMAR Reason: I am approving this document with my legally binding
signature
Location:
Date: 2024-10-21 10:20:19
