Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1570 (HP)

Akshay Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-08-28

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Petitioners have prayed for the following relief: “That it is in the interest of justice and fair play that the impugned order dated 16.08.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and this Hon'ble Court may decide the OA on merits after summoning the record of the same from the Ld. Tribunal, or the Ld. Tribunal may further be directed to decide the O.A. expeditiously or this Hon'ble Court may after summoning the record of the Ld. Tribunal, decide the O.A. in the interest of justice.” 2. Order impugned, dated 16.08.2018, passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2644 of 2018, titled as Akshay Sharma and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reads as under: “Replies stand filed. Rejoinders, if any, be filed within two weeks. List on 12.09.2018. M.A. No. 1547 of 2018 Reply on behalf of the original applicants stand filed. No other reply is intended to be filed. Heard. In the facts and circumstances, materials on record and interest of justice, subject to keeping fifteen posts of Junior Office Assistant vacant for the applicants and final outcome of the original application, respondent No. 3- Commission shall be free to declare the result of the process for recruitment to the post of Junior Office Assistants. The application stands disposed of.” 3. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that while passing the impugned order, on the prayer of the original applicants/petitioners for grant of interim relief, learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the respondents were considering ineligible candidates for appointment against the posts of Junior Office Assistant on the basis of a communication dated 19th March, 2018, addressed by the Deputy Secretary (Personnel), Government of Himachal Pradesh, by ignoring the essential qualification condition laid down in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules to the post of Junior Office Assistant, as also the 626 advertisement issued by the respondents for filling up the said posts vide Advertisement No. 32-3/2016. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has submitted that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, as the interest of original applicants stands protected and in case the original applicant (s) ultimately succeeds, persons whose appointments are held to be bad, shall obviously face the consequences. 5. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has submitted that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, as the interest of original applicants stands protected and in case the original applicant (s) ultimately succeeds, persons whose appointments are held to be bad, shall obviously face the consequences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the records so made available. 6. There appears to be merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. It is not understood as to what is the justification for issuing communication dated 19th March, 2018, when the field governing appointment to the post of Junior Office Assistant is duly covered by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules so framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 7. In this background, we clarify that the appointments to the posts of Junior Office Assistant (Code 556) shall be strictly in accordance with the Common Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the posts of Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III (Non-gazetted) in various Departments of Himachal Pradesh Government, as also Advertisement No. 32-3/2016 and not in terms of communication, dated 19th March, 2018. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application (s), if any.