Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1215 (HP)

Sudarshan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2010-11-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Respondent-department issued an advertisement, whereby applications were invited for filling up the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts). Petitioner submitted his application and was called for interview on 15th November, 2002. He supplied all the requisite testimonials, including the degree awarded by Osmania University. Petitioner was not offered appointment letter on the pretext that the degree awarded by Osmania University may not be valid. Respondent-department sought clarification from the Himachal Pradesh University. The Himachal Pradesh University clarified vide Annexure R-A that the degree of candidates enrolled for the one time bachelor degree programme up to the year of 1995-96 and during 1998-1999 may be treated as valid and at par with other degrees of the same University for all purposes including admission to higher degrees and employment. 2. Mr. Keshav Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner though has been appointed, but his appointment has been delayed by ten months for no fault of his client. He further contended that in these circumstances, his client is entitled to all the consequential benefits at par with the persons, who were appointed in sequel to their selection prior to the petitioner. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that there is no intentional delay in the appointment of the petitioner and the delay has been caused since there was some apprehension whether the degrees awarded by the Osmania University are valid or not. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has obtained B.A. degree from Osmania University and B.Ed. degree from Himachal Pradesh University. The suitability of the petitioner has been adjudged by the duly constituted Selection Committee. The appointment of the petitioner has been delayed, since the State Government has sought clarification from the Himachal Pradesh University with regard to the validity of the degrees awarded by the Osmania University. The same, as noticed above, was clarified by the Himachal Pradesh University. Fact of the matter is that the petitioner has been appointed as T.G.T. (Arts). However, it was delayed by ten months. Petitioner cannot be faulted for delay in his appointment. The fault lies with the respondent-State. 6. The same, as noticed above, was clarified by the Himachal Pradesh University. Fact of the matter is that the petitioner has been appointed as T.G.T. (Arts). However, it was delayed by ten months. Petitioner cannot be faulted for delay in his appointment. The fault lies with the respondent-State. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 250 have held that in case there is delay in appointment for no fault of candidate, he is entitled to ranking given in select list and to be considered for promotion. Their Lordships have held as under: "3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the inter se seniority as Asstt. Engineers was left open in the order, the directions given by the Tribunal to consider the case as Executive Engineer and determine his seniority on the basis of the promotion, is not valid in law. We find no force in the contention. Once he is found to be eligible according to the rules, then his seniority is required to be determined as per the procedure prescribed in the rules in vogue. It is further contended that the fifth respondent was not qualified since he had not completed 8 years of required service. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that two years period is relaxable in the case of the reserved candidates. The inter se seniority as Asstt. Executive Engineer is required to be determined; he joined service in 1981 and, therefore, he did not have the requisite service. We find no force in the contention. Since he was selected by direct recruitment, he is entitled to be appointed according to rule. His appointment was delayed for no fault of his and he came to be appointed in 1981, he is, therefore, entitled to the ranking given in the select list and appointment made accordingly. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order." 6. The decision of the respondent-department to delay the appointment of the petitioner was arbitrary and unreasonable. Petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits to which he was entitled in case he had been appointed from the due date as per the selection list. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made herein above, the petition is allowed. The decision of the respondent-department to delay the appointment of the petitioner was arbitrary and unreasonable. Petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits to which he was entitled in case he had been appointed from the due date as per the selection list. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made herein above, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner to be validly made at par with those candidates, who were appointed on the basis of the select list, with all consequential benefits, except arrears of salary.