Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 42 (HP)

SHASHI SHARMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-01-08

R.B.MISRA, SURJIT SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Per Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral):- Petitioner has sought judicial review of order dated May 8, 2002, passed in O.A. (D) No. 1001/1995 and order dated 30th July 2004, passed on the review petition No. (D) 3/2002 for the review of the aforesaid order dated 8.5.2002 by the State Administrative Tribunal, by means of the present writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. 2. First, we may notice the relevant facts. Petitioner was appointed clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala in the year 1976. It appears that in the year 1982, there were some vacancies of Steno-typists, on the establishment of Deputy Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala. The petitioner made a written request for being posted against one of the vacancies of Steno-typists. An order was issued on 3rd February 1982, Annexure A-2, posting him as Stenotypist in the pay scale of clerks plus Rs. 25/-, as special pay. He has been working as Steno-typist ever since. In the year 1990, he made a representation that he be treated on the cadre of clerks. It appears that he made such a representation, because by then on account of revision of pay scales effective from 1.1.1986, clerks were given the benefit of automatic promotion to the posts of Junior Assistants on completion of certain number of years in service and Junior Assistants were then eligible for promotion to the higher post of Assistant. For Steno-typists there was no provision for automatic promotion to any higher post on completion of service of certain given number of years. His representation was rejected in the year 1990. He filed original application in the year 1995, claiming that he continued to be part of the cadre of clerk as he was never appointed as Steno-typist, but was only posted as such, vide Annexure A-2. 3. Respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioner. They stated that the petitioner had applied for the post of Steno-typist and was considered alongwith other candidates, both departmental and those sponsored by the employment exchange and it was after his selection that he was appointed as a Steno-typist, though in the letter Annexure A-2 word “appointment” did not figure. 3. Respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioner. They stated that the petitioner had applied for the post of Steno-typist and was considered alongwith other candidates, both departmental and those sponsored by the employment exchange and it was after his selection that he was appointed as a Steno-typist, though in the letter Annexure A-2 word “appointment” did not figure. It was stated that petitioner was not entitled to take benefit of the omission of aforesaid word in Annexure A-2, especially when he had himself applied for appointment as Steno-typist and was appointed as such, after selection. It was also stated by the respondents that petitioner’s name had been removed from the seniority list of the clerks soon after he was appointed as Steno-typists and thereafter his name was reflected in the seniority list of Steno-typists, published in the year 1987. 4. Learned Tribunal dismissed the original application. Petitioner filed review petition, which too was dismissed. We had part heard the matter on 29th December, 2008. Further arguments have been heard today. Respondents have produced the original record, which shows that a test for the vacant posts of Steno-typist was conducted on 20th March 1981. In all, 18 candidates took the test. Fourteen of them had been sponsored by the employment exchange and four, including the petitioner, were departmental candidates. Petitioner, who stood at No. 4 in the merit, was amongst the selected candidates and was later on appointed. In view of the fact that the petitioner applied for the post of Steno-typist and also took the test for the said post which was held on 20th March, 1981 and it was on the basis of his selection for the post of Steno-typist that he was posted as such, he cannot be heard to say that he had not been appointed as Steno-typist and that he still holds lien on the post of Clerk. Also, we find that his name was deleted from the seniority list of clerks and included in the seniority list of steno-typist, which was published in the year 1987. Petitioner did not challenge the deletion of his name from the seniority list of clerks and inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Steno-typists. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore dismissed.