Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 752 (HP)

Beasa Thakur v. State of H. P

2012-10-29

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Per Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has laid challenge to the order, dated 1st September, 2012, Annexure P2, whereby she has been transferred from Mandi to Jogindernagar. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she is not an Instructor, but a Junior Tailoring Mistress and, therefore, she could not have been transferred in place of private respondent, who is an Instructor. Believing the submission of the petitioner to be correct, we had stayed the impugned order on 11.9.2012 in the following terms: “CMP No. 11003 of 2012 Notice in the aforesaid terms. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she is actually Junior Tailoring Mistress but she has wrongly been shown as Instructor (Embroidery and Needle Work) and posted in place of respondent No.3, who actually is an Instructor (Embroidery and Needle Work) and the R&P Rules of the two posts are not the same. In view of the aforesaid submissions the impugned order is stayed in case the petitioner is not relieved till date.” 3. Reply has been filed by the private respondent. Along with reply, a number of documents have been attached. The first of these documents is a copy of O.A. No. 3201 of 2006, filed by the present petitioner, Smt. Beasa Devi, in the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal at Shimla. In the memo of parties, she has shown herself to be an Instructor (Cutting and Sewing) at Govt. ITI, Mandi. The petitioner, by means of said O.A., had challenged the order dated 24.10.2006, wherein, she had been shown as an Instructor (Cutting and Tailoring) and had been transferred from Mandi to Bagsiad. At that time, she had not raised any plea that she is not an Instructor. 4. Another document, which is on record, is a copy of O.A. No. 750 of 2007, filed by Smt. Gian Vati, Instructor (Cutting and Tailoring), at ITI Kullu, who had challenged her transfer. In that petition, the present petitioner, Smt. Beasa Thakur, was arrayed as respondent No.3 and in the memo of parties, she had been described as an Instructor (Cutting and Tailoring) at ITI Kullu. The allegation in the said O.A. was that respondent No.3 (present petitioner), who was an Instructor at ITI Mandi and was under transfer from ITI Mandi to ITI Bagsaid, had managed to get herself adjusted at Kullu. The allegation in the said O.A. was that respondent No.3 (present petitioner), who was an Instructor at ITI Mandi and was under transfer from ITI Mandi to ITI Bagsaid, had managed to get herself adjusted at Kullu. The present petitioner, Smt. Beasa Thakur, filed reply to the said O.A.. but, she did not deny the fact that she was an Instructor and in fact, in the verification, she had again described herself to be working as an Instructor (Cutting and Tailoring) at ITI Kullu. 5. Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has drawn our attention to the letter dated th September, 2001, issued by the CommissionercumSecretary (Technical Education), wherein it has been clearly stated that the Governor of Himachal Pradesh has been pleased to accord the approval for converting the posts of Junior Tailoring Mistress into Craft Instructor in their respective subjects. 6. It is obvious that the petitioner was aware of this letter since in the earlier litigations, she described herself to be an Instructor. In the present petition, she has annexed a copy of seniority list to show that she was a Junior Tailoring Mistress. This seniority list relates to the year 2000, much before the letter dated 20th September, 2001 was issued. It is more than obvious that the petitioner, with a view to hoodwink this Court, stated false facts and managed to obtain stay orders from this Court. 7. Writ petitions are decided on the basis of the affidavits of the parties and the parties are expected to state complete and correct facts before the Court. Whenever, there is suppression of facts or suggestion of false facts, the writ petition has to be rejected applying the principle of Suppressio Veri and Suggestio Falsii. 8. In the present case, we have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner knew that she was an Instructor and wrongly described herself to be a Junior Tailoring Mistress, with a view to obtain stay orders from the Court. 9. In this view of the matter, we have no other option, but to dismiss the writ petition for misstatement of facts. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly, with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/. Pending application(s), if any, is also rejected.