Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2309 (HP)

Uttam Singh v. Tej Ram

2016-11-01

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. In terms of the note of the Registry, respondent No. 1 has been served after admission, has chosen not to appear. Hence, he is set exparte. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and order, dated 21st February, 2011, made by the learned Single Judge/Writ Court in CWP (T) No. 7364 of 2008, titled as Tej Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitioner respondent No. 1 herein was allowed and the appointment of writ respondent No. 4appellant herein as Takniki Sahayak in Gram Panchayats Thachi, Murah, Kau came to be quashed (for short “the impugned judgment”). 3. The writ record does disclose that the writ petitioner respondent No. 1 herein has chosen to remain absent on 9th December, 2010 and 6th January, 2011. In terms of the mandate of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”), the writ petition was to be dismissed in default and the Writ Court had no occasion to grant the writ petition without hearing the writ petitioner. But despite the fact that nobody appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner respondent No. 1 herein, the writ petition was allowed and the appointment of writ respondent No. 4appellant came to be quashed. 4. Only on this count, the impugned judgment merits to be quashed. 5. It is also apt to record herein that the Writ Court, in para 4 of the impugned judgment, while recording the findings that “The experience certificate produced by respondent No. 4 does not seem to be genuine”, has quashed the appointment of writ respondent No. 4appellant herein without ordering for any inquiry or obtaining any expert opinion qua the genuineness of the experience certificate, which, on the face of it, is illegal and without any basis. 6. Having said so, the impugned judgment is set aside, the appeal is allowed, the writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number and is transferred to the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) with a request to the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits after hearing the parties. 7. Parties to cause appearance before the Tribunal on 28th November, 2016. The Tribunal is requested to issue notice to the writ petitioner respondent No. 1 herein. 8. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.