Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge.
Shri Rajinder Singh ..Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others. …Respondents.
CWP (T) No.4410 of 2008. [OA No.1168 of 1997]
Decided On: 28th February, 2011.
Bonafide Himachali certificate - Appointment Dispute - The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as a part-time water carrier in a government primary school due to the failure to produce a 'Bonafide Himachali certificate' and appointed the next candidate in merit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reengagement to the post of Part-Time Water Carrier in a government primary school after his appointment was canceled for failing to produce a 'Bonafide Himachali certificate'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality in the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment and dismissed the petition.
Issues: Dispute over the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment and the subsequent appointment of another candidate.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to produce the required certificate led to the cancellation of his appointment, and the court found no grounds to challenge the decision.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment was upheld.
The petitioner had filed Original Application in the erstwhile Tribunal to reengage him to the post of Part-Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Sural, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba and sought the quashment of the order dated 20th March, 1997 (Annexure A-2) canceling his appointment and thereafter appointing respondent No.3 against the said post.
2. Heard and gone through the record.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner was selected and appointed as part-time water-carrier in the said Primary School vide order Annexure A-1, inter alia, subject to production of “Bonafide Himachali certificate” to which he failed to produce. The certificate already issued in his favour was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was son of Ishwar Chand, resident of Jammu & Kashmir. As such, respondent No.3 who was next in merit was appointed against the said post.
4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already appended requisite certificates with his application when he applied for the said post, but as per respondents no such certificate in original was found appended therewith. As per the communication received by the learned Additional Advocate General from the Block Primary Education Officer (B.P.E.O.), Pangi, the father of the petitioner was bonafide resident of village Gandhari in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and by mistake the then S.D.M. had issued the bonafide Himachali certificate in Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? favour of the petitioner, which was later cancelled. Thus, that might be the reason the petitioner could not produce any certificate as required, as such his appointment was canceled and the offer of appointment was rightly given to respondent No.3 who was next in merit.
5. Therefore, for the above reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby his appointment was treated as cancelled, as such, the petition is dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
