Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1428 (HP)

Ms. Nigma Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-10-15

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) LPA No. 84 of 2011 This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th November, 2010, made by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 2594 of 2008 (OA No. 1733 of 1999), whereby writ petition came to be dismissed, in terms of the judgment dated 6th August, 2010, passed by this Court in CWP (T) No. 4595 of 2008, hereinafter referred to as “ impugned judgment-I”. LPA No. 277 of 2010 2. By the medium of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has questioned the judgment dated 4th January, 2010, passed by the Writ Court in CWP (T) No. 2173 of 2008, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed, hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment-II”. LPA No. 453 of 2011 3. Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment dated 14th June, 2011, passed by the Writ Court in CWP (T) No. 14090 of 2008, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed, in terms of the judgment dated 2nd June, 2011, passed by this Court in CWP (T) No. 8409 of 2008, hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment-III”. 4. The writ petitioners in all the writ petitions had sought reliefs to appoint them as Language Teacher(s). The dispute in all these Letters Patent Appeals is-whether the Degree of Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Shikshan Mandal, Agra is recognized with Himachal Pradesh Government? 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Camp at Dharamshala, in O.A. No. 498 of 1998, titled as Ms. Nisha Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 23.08.2007 and the same has attained finality. 6. In view of the judgment, supra, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to examine the case(s) of the appellant-writ petitioners, in the light of the judgment, supra, and pass appropriate order, within six weeks from today. The judgment, referred to above, shall form part of this judgment. 7. It goes without saying that in case the consideration orders goes against the appellants-writ petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the same. 9. Accordingly, all the impugned judgments are modified, as indicated above. 10. The appeals are disposed of.