Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 785 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Kamlesh Kumari

2014-06-23

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP (M) No. 422 of 2014 By the medium of this limitation petition, the appellants- applicants have sought condonation of delay of 308 days, which has crept-in in filing the present appeal. 2. We have gone through the averments contained in the limitation petition read with the impugned judgment and are of the considered view that the appellants-applicants have carved out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. LPA No. 123 of 2014 3. The appeal is taken on Board. 4. The appellants have called in question the judgment and order, dated 15th March, 2013, made by the learned Writ Court in CWP No. 2574 of 2012-H, titled as Kamlesh Kumari versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 5. We have gone through the memo of appeal and the impugned judgment. 6. The Writ Court, after scanning the pleadings, allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent and the respondents-appellants have been commanded to consider the case of the writ petitioner-respondent and appoint her as a Clerk on daily wage basis within a period of six weeks from the date of judgment and also consider her case for regularization in accordance with law after completion of requisite number of years of service. It is apt to reproduce operative portion of the judgment herein: “7. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider and appoint the petitioner as Clerk on daily wage basis, within a period of six weeks from today and also consider her case for regularization in accordance with law after completion of requisite number of years of service. The pending application(s), if any are also dispose of. No costs.” 7. Heard. 8. The moot question, which arises for consideration, is - whether the Court has power to direct the respondents-authorities to make appointment? 9. We are of the considered view that the Court, at best, can direct the respondents-authorities to consider the case for appointment, but cannot issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents-authorities to issue appointment order. 10. Heard. 8. The moot question, which arises for consideration, is - whether the Court has power to direct the respondents-authorities to make appointment? 9. We are of the considered view that the Court, at best, can direct the respondents-authorities to consider the case for appointment, but cannot issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents-authorities to issue appointment order. 10. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to allow this Letters Patent Appeal by directing the respondents-appellants herein to consider the case of the writ petitioner-respondent herein in terms of the Rules occupying the field and pass appropriate orders, as warranted under law, within six weeks from today. 11. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified, as indicated hereinabove. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.