Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1482 (HP)

Prabhat Chandra Sharma v. State of H. P.

2015-10-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.3.2010, made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 6876 of 2008, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant herein came to be dismissed, for short “the impugned judgment”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The grievance projected by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the writ petitioner and respondent No. 4 are from different batches and not of the same batch. The Writ Court has discussed this issue in operative portion of the impugned judgment. It is apt to reproduce operative portion of the judgment herein: “The method of appointment has been prescribed as per notification dated 2nd December, 1998. The State has decided to fill-up 50% posts batchwise. Petitioner has obtained diploma in the month of July, 1986 and respondent No. 4 has obtained the diploma in the month of December, 1986. Petitioner has secured 66% marks in the interview and respondent No. 4 has obtained 78% marks. Respondent No. 4 was selected and appointed. The Court is of the considered view that the expression “batchwise” has to be given common sense view. The candidates who have obtained diploma in the year, 1986, constitute “one batch”. The batch comprises of one complete calendar year. The candidates who have passed the examination in a particular year are to be treated as one unit/batch. In case preference is given to the candidates who have passed examination and got their names registered with the respective Employment Exchanges prior in time, it will amount to constituting a class within a class. This is not permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have correctly interpreted and applied the instructions by treating year 1986 in its entirety as “one batch” for the purpose of recruitment.” 3. The said judgment gets support from para 3 of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, thus the petitioner is caught by his own admission and acts. He has admitted in para 3 of the writ petition that the writ petitioner has got his name registered in the month of July 1986 and respondent No. 4 has got his name registered in the month of December, 1986. Thus, they are of same batch. 4. He has admitted in para 3 of the writ petition that the writ petitioner has got his name registered in the month of July 1986 and respondent No. 4 has got his name registered in the month of December, 1986. Thus, they are of same batch. 4. Having said so, no interference is called for, the appeal is dismissed. alongwith pending applications, if any.