Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2060 (HP)

Panna Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-04-06

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Saur, Ramshehr Block. He appeared in the interview alongwith other candidates. He was not selected. The Selection Committee selected and appointed one Sh. Mohan Lal. Petitioner challenged the appointment of Sh. Mohan Lal by way of O.A. No. 1924/1996. The same was decided by the learned erstwhile Himachal Administrative Tribunal on 30.4.1998. The operative portion of the order reads thus: "In view of these facts we find that respondent No.5 submitted false information to the Selection Committee on which basis he was selected by the Selection Committee. Accordingly we find that his selection is illegal and we quash the same. In view of the false information given by Mohan Lal respondent No.5 which he has not been able to refute despite opportunity given he is to be disqualified for consideration for post in question and should not be considered. The respondents are directed to consider the rest of the candidates again after satisfying themselves that none in the applicant’s family is in Government/Semi Government service and if so giving him necessary marks for the same. The selection process will be completed within two months.” 2. In sequel to the directions issued by the learned Tribunal, the selection process was again gone into and the petitioner was selected and offered appointment letter to the post of Part Time Water Carrier on 5.5.1998. He joined his duties on 15.5.1998. He made representation to the competent authority on 7.12.2001 followed by another representation dated 27.2.2002 for counting his seniority from the date of appointment of Sh. Mohan Lal. Thereafter, petitioner filed O.A. No.1407/2002 before the learned Tribunal. The same was disposed of by treating it as representation to the Director, Primary Education on 16.7.2002. The Director, Primary Education rejected the same on 13.8.2002. 3. Mr. M.C. Verma has strenuously argued that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered at par with Sh. Anant Ram, respondent No.6 for the purpose of seniority. 4. Mr. Anshul Bansal and Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj have supported the decision dated 13.8.2002. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. M.C. Verma has strenuously argued that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered at par with Sh. Anant Ram, respondent No.6 for the purpose of seniority. 4. Mr. Anshul Bansal and Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj have supported the decision dated 13.8.2002. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, it is apparent from the operative portion of the order passed in O.A. No.1924/1996 preferred by the petitioner that respondents were directed to consider the rest of the candidates again after satisfying themselves that none in the petitioner’s family is in Government/Semi-Government service and to give him necessary marks for the same. It is in these circumstances; the petitioner was selected and appointed on 5.5.1998. He has been assigned seniority with effect from 15.5.1998. However, as far as case of respondent No.6 is concerned, he had filed O.A. No. 1931/1996 assailing the appointment of Sukh Dev. The same was directed to be treated as representation by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. He decided the same. In sequel to order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, Director of Primary Education had granted the benefit of seniority to Sh. Anant Ram from the date the seniority was assigned to Sukh Dev. The seniority to the petitioner has correctly been assigned from the date he has joined his duties, i.e. with effect from 15.5.1998. He could not be assigned seniority at par with Sh. Anant Ram. Mr. M.C. Verma has failed to point out any law under which his client was entitled to get the seniority from the date of appointment of Sh. Mohan Lal, whose appointment was quashed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 30.4.1998. The learned Tribunal has not given any direction while disposing of OA No. 1924/1996 on 30.4.1998 and 1407/2002 on 16.7.2002 to consider and grant the petitioner seniority from the date Sh. Mohan Lal was appointed. It is settled law by now that in the absence of rules framed for the purpose of assigning seniority, the same is to be regulated from the date of appointment. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.