Back
2004 Supreme(HP) 249
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
BAKHSHISH KAUR,D.S.AMIST
HEMANT KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
HP.SERVICE COMMISSION - Respondent
O. As, 2545/2004,2657/2004 and 2609/2004
Decided On : 10/27/2004
Sh. Dalip Sharma Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.1. Sh. Chirag B. Singh, Ld. Dy. Adv. Gen. for respondent No.2.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the experience gained after acquiring essential qualification for a post is to be counted for eligibility, as stated in the advertisement, and is in consonance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
Headnote:
Experience - Public Service Commission - Recruitment and Promotion Rules - [Annexure A-2, Annexure A-1] - The court considered the requirement of two years experience after obtaining essential qualification as incorporated in the advertisement Annexure A-2 and its consonance with the Rules. The court interpreted the Rules and the advertisement to determine the eligibility criteria for the post of Publicity Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought relief from the rejection of their candidatures for the post of Publicity Officer by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. They argued that the requirement of two years experience after obtaining essential qualification, as stated in the advertisement, was not in consonance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the requirement of two years experience after obtaining essential qualification, as stated in the advertisement, was in consonance with the Rules. It held that the experience gained after acquiring essential qualification for the post is to be counted for eligibility.
Issues: The main issue was whether the requirement of two years experience after obtaining essential qualification, as incorporated in the advertisement, was in consonance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the Rules and the advertisement to determine the eligibility criteria for the post of Publicity Officer. It considered the language of the Rules and the advertisement, as well as previous decisions and clarifications received from the government, to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the original applications, stating that the requirement of two years experience after obtaining essential qualification, as stated in the advertisement, was in consonance with the Rules.
Honble Mrs. Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Retd.) Chairman - This order disposes of three original application (O.A.) No. 2545 of 2004, O.A. No. 2609 of 2004 and | OA No. 2657 of 2004) as the question of law and facts involved therein are similar.
2. Before we proceed to deal with the rival contentions of the parties, it becomes necessary to note a few introductory facts. O.A. 2545 of 2004:
3. The applicant did B.Sc. (Medical) in 1996. Obtained qualification of Bachelor in journalism and Mass Communication from Himachal Pradesh University in 1997. He had also obtained degree in MA (Hindi) from Himachal Pradesh University in 1999 besides obtaining degree of MBA with Specialization in Marketing ( from IGNOU in 2002. He possesses qualification of Master in Journalism and Mass I Communication (2003). He had worked as Sub Editor with Dainik Himalya Dev from I January 1997 to April 2000 and worked as trainee reporter with Danik Tribune I Shimla from December 2001 to June 2002 and from June 2002 to June 2003 as a I reporter with Dainik Jagran. He is working as casual News reader with Reporter and I Announcer with Door Darshan Shimla and All India Radio respectively.
4. He has sought the following reliefs:- O.A. 2545/2004: "Hemant Kumar Wats vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and others. (i) That the impugned condition imposed in the advertisement at Annexure A-2 j for the post of Publicity Officer to the effect that "the experience, if any, will be I counted after obtaining EQ for the post" may be quashed and set aside being not in consonance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules at Annexure A-1. (ii) That the rejection of candidature of applicants by respondent No.1 vide letters dated 10.8.2004 Annexures A-3 and A4 may be quashed and set aside and the respondent commission may be directed to consider the applicants for appointment to the post in question with all consequential benefits, (iii) That if during the pendency of original application any interview/test is conducted by respondent commission for the post in question without considering for the post in question without considering the applicant, in such event the I test/interview so conducted by the respondent commission for the pose of Publicity Officer pursuant to Annexure A-2 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent No.1 may be directed to reconduct the test/interview without insisting upon the impugned condition of two years experience after essential qualification, with all consequential benefits. (iv) That the respondent department may be directed to produce records pertaining to this case before this Honble Tribunal. (v) Any other relief deemed proper in the circumstances may also be granted, (vi) Costs of the application may also be awarded. O.A. 2657 of 2004 Bhajan Dass Kaith vs. Himachal! Pradesh Public Service Commission and another.
5. The applicant did B.A. in 1989 and post graduate diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication from IGNOU in 1998. in 2002 he obtained the qualification of Master in Journalism and Mass Communication. He has been working as Assistant Editor with Parvat ki-Goonj w.e.f. 15.10.1994, besides writing articles for the said paper. Thus, he has experience of creative working for All India as "Giri Raj" O.A. 2609 of 2004: Durga Dutt vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and others.
6. The applicant did B.A. in 1987 and Post Graduate Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication from IGNOU in 2001 and in 2003 obtained qualification of Master in Journalism and Mass Communication. He is working as casual News Reader cum-Announcer with All India Radio w.e.f. Nov. 1998.
7. Further facts, in brief, for the purpose of referring to certain documents are taken from O.A. 2545 of 2004 which are also somewhat similar in all these original applications.
8. The respondent No.1 i. e. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short the Commission) by way of issuing advertisement Annexure A-2 dated 5.2.2002 had invited applicati
