Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 839 (HP)

DINESH CHAND SHARMA v. HP KRISHI VISHVAVIDYALAYA

2009-10-07

DEEPAK GUPTA, V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT Per Deepak Gupta, J.-This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Tribunal dated 30.3.2006 passed in O A No. 2347 of 1998 whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner herein was rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner has obtained a decree in B.Sc.(Agriculture) from the H.P.Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur. In January, 1992 he was engaged on daily wages against the vacant post of Technical Assistant Grade-I @ Rs.50 per day. He was continuing on this post for 89 days at a time. The University set up a Krishi Vigyan Kendra at Bara in Tehsil Nadaun. It appears that the petitioner assisted the University in acquiring the lands of the right-holders. Even the land of the petitioner was acquired. On 21.7.1993, the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant, Grade-I on adhoc basis at a starting salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. On 31.12.1994 a regular incumbent was appointed against the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I and the adhoc services of the petitioner were dispensed with. However, on the same day, the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant Grade-II on adhoc basis. The petitioner worked against the said post though according to him he was discharging the duties of Technical Assistant Grade-I. On 1.12.1997 the petitioner was given regular appointment as Technical Assistant Grade-II. 3. It was only thereafter that for the first time, the petitioner represented that he should have been regularized in the year 1994. By means of the original application the petitioner claimed that he should be treated to be regularly appointed Technical Assistant Grade-I w.e.f. 1.12.1997 and be also paid wages of this post for the period 31.12.1994 to 30.12.1997. 4. At the outset, we may state that when the petitioner was appointed originally in 1992 and again in 1993 he was not appointed after following any proper recruitment process and appears to have been appointed through the back door. In 1994 regular selection was held and according to the respondent, the petitioner never applied for this post. Having not applied for the post, he could not have been appointed as Technical Assistant Grade-I. After three years, when he was regularly appointed as Technical Assistant Grade-II he could not be permitted to rake up the matter when he had accepted his appointment as Technical Assistant Grade-II on adhoc basis without any protest or demur. Having not applied for the post, he could not have been appointed as Technical Assistant Grade-I. After three years, when he was regularly appointed as Technical Assistant Grade-II he could not be permitted to rake up the matter when he had accepted his appointment as Technical Assistant Grade-II on adhoc basis without any protest or demur. It has been urged by Shri K.D.Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner that no advertisement was issued in the year 1994 when regular selection was made and the petitioner had no opportunity to apply for this post. The petitioner cannot be permitted to rake up this plea after four years. In case no advertisement has been issued when regular appointment was made in the year 1994 the petitioner should have challenged the appointment of the person appointed immediately thereafter. The petitioner did not challenge the said appointment but in fact joined services as Technical Grade-II on adhoc basis without protest. As such, he is not entitled to now contend that the selection in the year 1994 was not made after following due process. 5. We, therefore, find no error in the order of the learned Tribunal rejecting the original application filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.