Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 984 (HP)

BALWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-11-06

DEEPAK GUPTA, SURINDER SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J (Oral).-The petitioner had filed the Original Application before the learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal and after the abolition of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal vide notification issued by the Central Government the case has been transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 and the matter has been taken up by this Court and now registered as CWP(T) 7383/2008. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Steno typist/Stenographer and has been removed without any justification after a few months. 3. The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner was never appointed against the post of Stenographer but there was a scheme notified by the Government known as “Proficiency in Typing & Shorthand”. The main purpose of the scheme was to provide training in proficiency of shorthand and typing to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes. These candidates were required to have requisite qualification in shorthand and typing from the ITIs. With the purpose of ensuring that they maintain their proficiency and do not loose the same due to nonperformance of their duties, they were granted work under the said scheme, so that, they can practice typing and shorthand and they were to be granted stipend @ Rs. 500/- per month. 4. The stand of the respondent is that this scheme was in fact abolished w.e.f. 31st March, 2007 and a new Scheme known as “Training & Proficiency in Computer Application and Allied Activities” was notified. The purpose of the Scheme was similar i.e. to provide training in proficiency in computer application to the bonafides of H.P. belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, other backward classes and Minorities. The purpose was that they can continue to practice and then be eligible for opportunities in the Private/Government Sector. 5. It is obvious that these placements were not in the nature of appointments in jobs. In fact, the petitioner was informed about the same vide letter dated 30th March, 2007. This was more in the nature of an on going training to help him to compete in competitive examination. The petitioner was never appointed to a post. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is rejected. In fact, the petitioner was informed about the same vide letter dated 30th March, 2007. This was more in the nature of an on going training to help him to compete in competitive examination. The petitioner was never appointed to a post. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is rejected. However, in case the applicant is otherwise eligible for training under any other Scheme, his case shall be considered strictly in terms of the Scheme uninfluenced by the disposal of this writ petition.