Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 968 (HP)

Tribhuvan Singh v. State of HP

2018-05-23

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to decide the revision petition on merits after issuing the writ of mandamus. (ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to allowing the petitioner appointment as an Assistant Secretary in the respondent society office and justice be done after issuing the writ of mandamus. (iii) That the respondent society may kindly be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner in the month of February and March 2012 after issuing the writ of mandamus. (iv) That the writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the impugned report and order dated 12.12.2011 and 30.12.2011 as Annexure P-9 and resolution dated 30.4.2010 as Annexure P3 and Annexure P3/A and also quash the notice dated 4.4.2012 as Annexure P15. iv(a) That the writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned resolution dated 4.4.2012 Annexure P15/A. (v) That the entire record of the case may kindly be called for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (vi) That the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (vii) Any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Undisputedly vide resolution dated 24.2.2010, Managing Committee of the respondent-Co operative Society handed over the charge of the Secretary in favour of Assistant Secretary, Hari Ram in lieu of the ill health of the father of the petitioner with a rider that Hari Ram shall continue to perform such duties till the father of the petitioner, namely, Roshan Lal gains health. Also vide same resolution, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Secretary (Recovery Officer). Perusal of the resolution also demonstrates that the appointment of the petitioner was on compassionate grounds. 3. This was followed by resolution dated 4.4.2010, vide which after the father of the petitioner regained health, he resumed his duties as Secretary and Hari Ram was relegated to the post of Assistant Secretary. On this the appointment offered to the petitioner on compassionate grounds vide resolution dated 24.2.2010 was rescinded. In the meanwhile, father of the petitioner died. 3. This was followed by resolution dated 4.4.2010, vide which after the father of the petitioner regained health, he resumed his duties as Secretary and Hari Ram was relegated to the post of Assistant Secretary. On this the appointment offered to the petitioner on compassionate grounds vide resolution dated 24.2.2010 was rescinded. In the meanwhile, father of the petitioner died. Mother of the petitioner was offered appointment against the post of salesman, but she pleaded that the employment in issue be offered to her son. Respondent Co operative Society accordingly offered appointment to the petitioner vide resolution dated 29.9.2010 under the PACS Rules 2001 as salesman. 4. The appointment so offered to the petitioner was not accepted by him, inter alia, on the ground that as he was continuing to perform the duties of Assistant Secretary, therefore, he had a right to continue as such. In the meanwhile, complaints were filed against Society for offering appointment to persons without following any procedure and without availability of any post. Inquiry so held on the said complaints revealed that appointments were made by the Society in violation of procedure and without there being any available post. The communication in this regard dated 12.12.2011 addressed by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Palampur to Registrar Cooperative Society, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. This communication was assailed by the petitioner by way of a revision petition, which was dismissed by Deputy Registrar, Co operative Society, H.P. Dharamshala, vide impugned order dated 12.4.2012. 5. Whereas learned counsel for the petitioner has justified his initial appointment as Assistant Secretary and has impugned the subsequent act of the Society of offering appointment to him against the post of salesman, learned counsel for the respondent-Society has vehemently argued that the initial appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Secretary was nothing but an abuse of the process by the father of the petitioner, who at the relevant time was the Secretary of the Society. 6. It is a matter of record that as the petitioner did not join against the post of salesman, accordingly by virtue of orders passed by this Court during the pendency of the petition, another incumbent stood appointed against the said post. 7. 6. It is a matter of record that as the petitioner did not join against the post of salesman, accordingly by virtue of orders passed by this Court during the pendency of the petition, another incumbent stood appointed against the said post. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner, inter alia, has assailed Resolutions passed by Cooperative Society in this writ petition and further that disputed question of facts are involved in the same, in my considered view, the issues raised in the petition cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not convince the Court that the respondent-Cooperative Society was either “State” or “other Authority” as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the purposes of maintainability of the petition against it. 8. Accordingly, as in my considered view, the issues raised in the present petition cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum/Court of law for the redressal of his grievance. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in case the petitioner is to approach appropriate forum/appropriate Court of law for the redressal of his grievance, then the time spent by the petitioner while pursuing this case should be adjusted for the purposes of limitation. Ordered accordingly. It is further ordered that in case the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum/Court of law within a period of eight weeks from today for the redressal of his grievances, which are the subject matter of the present writ petition, then the appropriate authority/Court of law shall decide the issues so raised on merit. However, it is clarified that if no redressal is sought by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today, then the benefit of limitation shall not be extended to the petitioner ipso facto and application in this regard shall also be decided on its merit. In view of above petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.