Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 144 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Uma Rani

2013-03-01

KURIAN JOSEPH, RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. Heard. In view of the grounds taken in the application, the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 06 of 2013. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 19.03.2012, rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 885 of 2011-A. 3. ‘Key facts’ necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that the husband of the respondent has died in harness on 14th February, 2000. Respondent submitted an application for considering her candidature for appointment on compassionate basis. She was called upon to fill up the form of verification of character & antecedent for being considered for the post of Clerk on contract basis on 22nd October, 2007. She submitted the application after filling the forms for verification of character and antecedents on 29.10.2007. However, the fact of the matter is that the respondent instead of being considered for appointment as Clerk on compassionate grounds, was offered appointment as Peon on 31.01.2009. She joined her duties on 07.02.2009. It is in these circumstances, the respondent has filed CWP No. 855 of 2011-A. 4. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on 19.03.2012 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the respondent for the post of Clerk on compassionate basis. 5. Respondent’s husband has died in harness on 14.02.2000. The appellants (State) has framed the Recruitment and Promotion Rules called ‘The Himachal Pradesh Class-III Services (Clerk/Steno Typist/Statistical Assistant) Common Recruitment Rules, 2007.’ According to these rules, the minimum qualification for filling up the post of Clerk is Matriculation with Second Division or 10+2 examination or its equivalent from a recognized Board of School Education/University. The O.M. prescribing the qualification of 10+2 has been issued only on 14.08.2008. The respondent was duly qualified as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, notified on 13.04.2007. The O.M., dated 14.08.2008 could not be applied retrospectively. The instructions which were in vogue at the time of the death of respondent’s husband were to be taken into consideration. Case of the respondent’s husband was being considered for the post of Clerk as per letters, dated 22.10.2007 and 29.10.2007, but she has been offered appointment as Peon. 6. Learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the O.M., dated 14.08.2008 was not applicable in the present case. Case of the respondent’s husband was being considered for the post of Clerk as per letters, dated 22.10.2007 and 29.10.2007, but she has been offered appointment as Peon. 6. Learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the O.M., dated 14.08.2008 was not applicable in the present case. There is no illegality in the judgment, dated 19.03.2012. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.