Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 376 (HP)

PUSHPA DEVI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2003-12-19

NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2003
ORDER : Opportunity was granted to the applicant to file rejoinder. Despite this fact no rejoinder has been filed. The applicant is aggrieved against order dated 13.5.2003, whereby amongst other, the applicant has been transferred from GPS. Katholi to GPS Jawali allegedly on administrative grounds. Copy of the order is annexed as Annexure A-1 Main grievance of the applicant is that she is going to superannuate within one year and two months. 2. Reply has been filed by the respondent/state as well by the private respondent. Respondent State in their reply has stated in preliminary objection that the present OA is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Whereas the applicant has worked in her entire service career within 3 kms to 5 kms radius to her home place for the last two decades. As such the transfer of the applicant on administrative ground to GPS. Hawal in Education Block Jawali is justified which is merely 13 kms away from the present school. It is further submitted by the respondent/state that as per the service record the applicant has served within a radius of 2 kms. to 5 km a during her service career since 1979. During the said period the applicant remained posted at GPS Sakrala, GPS Sugnara and GPS Katholi which are located nearby her home town and hardly at a distance of 5 kms. The present place of posting of the applicant is GPS Hawal in Block Jawali is about 13 kms, from her earlier place of posting i.e. GPS Katholi. It is further submitted that the prescription slip of treatment of the applicant does mention that the applicant is handicapped, moreover it is not true that the GPS Hawal is a remote area, rather regular bus service is available to Hawal. 3. Reply has been filed by the private respondent No.3. It is submitted by the respondent No. 3 in her reply that the OA is not maintainable as the applicant has not come with clean hands and concealed the fact of joining of the respondent No. 3 at GPS Katholi Block Nagrota Surian on 15.5.2003 as is evident from the joining certificate copy dated 9.9.2003 issued by the Centre Head Teacher GPS Katholi a copy of which is attached as Annexure B-3/1. The stay order was obtained from this Honble Tribunal without disclosing this fact. The stay order was obtained from this Honble Tribunal without disclosing this fact. It is further submitted that the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone in view of the law declared by Honble High Court in the case of Shankar Dass vs. State reported in 1979 Shimla Law Cases page-298 It is further submitted that the applicant is within the redious of 3 to 5 kms. since 1979. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Additional Advocate General and have gone through the pleadings carefully. It is admitted position from the pleadings that the applicant since 1979 is within the redious of 2 to 5 kms. and where the applicant has been transferred is also 13 kms. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that now applicant is going to superannuate within one year and two months and she may be given the station of her choice. Moreover, it is clear from the pleadings that the respondent No.3 has joined on 15.5.2003 and interim order was passed on 10.5.2003. This fact to joining of respondent No.3 was not brought to the notice of this Forum otherwise interim order would not have been passed. This case is fully covered by the judgment of Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1979 Shimla Law Cases 298 re: Shankar Dass vs. State of H.P. and others in which it has been held that: "Writ petitions are decided merely on pleadings stated on oath and therefore, it is the duty of the litigants not to resort to suppestic veri or suggestion falsi with regard to any material fact at the time of filing the writ petitions. If a petitioner subsequently come out with some material fact which could have obtained for him from the court there is no escape from the conclusion that he has done so with a view to procure an exparte order in his favour by keeping the court in dark as regards the facts which were within his knowledge. Such an attitude on the part of a petitioner can never be encouraged when the extra ordinary jurisdiction contemplated by Article 226 of the constitution is sought to be invoked." 5. Such an attitude on the part of a petitioner can never be encouraged when the extra ordinary jurisdiction contemplated by Article 226 of the constitution is sought to be invoked." 5. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, that the applicant has concealed the material facts, only on this score the present original application can be thrown out. This is also settled position of law by the Honble Apex Court howsoever strong is the case of the applicant, if certain material/facts have been concealed, the applicant can be thrown out. 6. Taking into consideration the stay of the applicant within a radius of 2 to 5 kms. for more than two decades and further transfer within a radius of 13 kms I do not find any merit in the present original application and the same is dismissed. Interim order passed on 10.6.2003 is vacated. OA stands disposed of, argued by the learned counsel for the Commission that the commission deals with large number of applications. Its staff has to sort-out the applications submitted in proper form, process them and to take-up follow-up actions. No discretion is given to the commission or freedom to the staff to relax the condition in the Notification/Advertisement. Laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of request to contain irregularities or omissions. Such cases cannot be decided on sympathies or by extending instructions. The commission with its heavy work-load has to adhere strictly to its norms and its work can be streamlined only by strict adherence to the norms settled by it. A case here or a case there, may invoke sympathy or may deserve sympathy as in this case. But, it is not within the province of this court to extend any sympathy in such cases. The Public Service Commission is a high Constitutional Authority. This Forum will normally loathe interfering with the decision, unless strong grounds are made out like malafides. 7. In the instant case, there is no allegation of malafide against the respondent. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the action of respondent commission in rejecting the application of the applicant cannot be said to be illegal. 8. 7. In the instant case, there is no allegation of malafide against the respondent. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the action of respondent commission in rejecting the application of the applicant cannot be said to be illegal. 8. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present original Application and the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. -