Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 545 (HP)

Subhash Dutt v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2021-08-12

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2021
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present petition is maintained by the petitioner for the grant of following substantive relief :- (i) "That directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to offer appointment to the applicant from the same date when the persons junior to the applicant in batch were offered appointment w.e.f. December, 2016 on the basis of interview conducted on 20.10.2016 (Annexure A-1) by considering the applicant of 2005 batch with all consequential benefits of pay, arrear, seniority etc. in the interest of law and justice. 2. As per the petitioner, he was called by the respondents for interview for the post of Language Teacher vide communication dated 04.10.2016 and as such the interviews were conducted on 20.10.2016 and the petitioner appeared in the interview, however, despite the petitioner explained the interview board and authorities that he belongs to 2005 batch, but, it was not accepted by the respondents and they further stated that they themselves will seek clarification from the University concerned. However, one post of Language Teacher of OBC category was kept vacant. 3. It has been submitted that the degree issued by the University of Jammu in favour of the petitioner clearly goes to show that his Session was 2005. As per petitioner, he took admission in the year, 2004 in Shastri Memorial College of Education, which later on was derecognized by the University of Jammu on account of some controversy, as a result of which, candidates studying in the said College were shifted to Harward College of Education Jammu and that the petitioner completed the entire session and as such at the brink of examinations i.e. 24th September, 2005, a few days before that the Harward College of Education cancelled his admission on the ground that the Bachelor Degree obtained by him from University of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla was not recognized by the University of Jammu. Aggrieved with said cancellation, the petitioner approached the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been averred that by an interim arrangement, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination which was to be commenced from 24.09.2005 and the petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 26.08.2010, whereby the University of Jammu and the concerned college were directed to declare the result of the petitioner. Hence, for all intents and purposes the batch of the petitioner is 2005. 4. Hence, for all intents and purposes the batch of the petitioner is 2005. 4. It has been averred that in furtherance of the batch-wise interviews held on 20.10.2016, the respondents kept a seat vacant and it seems that they have been communicating with the Jammu University and respondent No.2 also wrote a letter to respondent No.3 in this regard and respondent No.3 also wrote a letter to the University of Jammu on 20.07.2017. It has been submitted that many juniors of the petitioner have already been offered appointment as Teacher, but due to the confusion with respect to the batch of the petitioner, the appointment could not be offered to him. Feeling aggrieved by the acts and conduct of the respondents, he approached the erstwhile learned Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No.5075/2017, which, on being transferred to this Court, is now registered as CWPOA No.2989/2020. 5. In reply to the petition, it is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner appeared in the counseling for the post of Language Teacher, which was held in the office of respondent No.3 and after scrutiny of the documents of the petitioner it was observed that the date of passing of B.Ed. examination has not been mentioned in the certificate of the B.Ed. issued by the concerned University. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered for appointment as Language Teacher at that time. It has been submitted that thereafter the petitioner submitted his B.Ed. pass marks sheet issued by the concerned University on 12.11.2010 in the office of respondent No.3 on 17.5.2017 and the department offered appointment for the post of Language Teacher in the year 2016 only to those candidates who had passed their B.Ed. degree in the year 2005. 6. It has been submitted that one post of OBC category from which the petitioner belongs was kept vacant. Thereafter, respondent No.3 sought clarification from the concerned authority/University vide letter dated 21.07.2017, but no reply/clarification has been received. Further, cause of action pertains to the University concerned, which has not mentioned the date of passing of the B.Ed. certification of the petitioner, who has not been impleaded as necessary party in the present petition. Later, when the same was issued by the concerned University, the date of declaration of the result was mentioned 12.11.2010, whereas the petitioner had appeared in the relevant B.Ed. certification of the petitioner, who has not been impleaded as necessary party in the present petition. Later, when the same was issued by the concerned University, the date of declaration of the result was mentioned 12.11.2010, whereas the petitioner had appeared in the relevant B.Ed. examination in the year, 2005, hence, the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and deserves dismissal on this sole ground. 7. In rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents-State the contents of the petition were reasserted. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 9. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner appeared in the Examination of B.Ed. in the year 2005, but his result was not declared as the B.A. Degree of the H.P. University was not stated to be recognized by the University concerned, where the petitioner was doing B.Ed. Course. The writ petition was maintained by him and after decision of the said writ petition in favour of the petitioner, his degree was recognized and the result was declared in the year 2010, so, he is required to be given seniority of the B.Ed., from the year 2005. 10. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State that when the result was declared in the year 2010, the petitioner cannot be given seniority for the batch-wise appointment from the year 2005 in the OBC category. 11. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was not the fault of the petitioner that his result was not declared in the year 2005 and it was beyond his control. 12. The present is a case where the petitioner has passed B.Ed. examination in the year 2005, but the result was declared in the year 2010. The reason of declaration of the result was that the University concerned was not recognizing the Bachelor of Arts Degree of the H.P. University, as Graduate Degree. To get the declaration in his favour, the petitioner maintained the writ petition which was allowed and the Degree of Graduation was recognized and thereafter, his result of B.Ed. was declared. The reason of declaration of the result was that the University concerned was not recognizing the Bachelor of Arts Degree of the H.P. University, as Graduate Degree. To get the declaration in his favour, the petitioner maintained the writ petition which was allowed and the Degree of Graduation was recognized and thereafter, his result of B.Ed. was declared. The time of five years in fact was spent for no fault of the petitioner and only on account of the misinterpretation and non-application of mind by the University concerned, where the petitioner was doing B.Ed. course. In these circumstances, can a person be allowed to suffer for the reason(s), which is/are not within his control, the interest of justice demands that he should not be otherwise ignored for getting his right and when it is declined in favour of a particular person and makes him to suffer for that delay, which has occurred for the reasons of getting the justice/right declined in his favour is nothing, but putting the person to grave injustice. Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner should be given seniority for batch-wise appointment in the year 2005 in his category when he in fact passed the B.Ed. examination and not from the year 2010, when the result was declared. The petitioner was having no control over this delay and thus, to meet the ends of justice, appropriate order is required to be issued. 13. Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed and it is ordered that the respondents will treat the petitioner as holding B.Ed. Degree in the year 2005 for batch-wise appointment in the OBC category. 14. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. No order as to costs.