2021 Supreme(HP) 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, JJ.
Shalini Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another - Respondents
CWP No. 2865 of 2020
Decided On : 05-01-2021

Headnote:

Right to Information Act, 2005 – Appointment – Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement for filling up of the posts of Veterinary Officer batchwise on contract basis in which 18 posts were reserved for General Category – Offer of appointment was given to 11 candidates of General Category to post of Veterinary Officer and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 in waiting list. – As many as five candidates made requests for extension in joining time – Offer of appointment was given to 11 candidates of General Category to the post of Veterinary Officer and petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 in waiting list. – As many as five candidates made requests for extension in joining time – Respondents granted extension in joining time to all such five candidates till 17.6.2019. – Extension was granted in favour of Dr. Sunil Kumar and Dr. Ashish Sharma – Father of petitioner applied for information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and he was supplied copy of instructions – Dr. Nipuna Thakur and Dr. Apoorva Shekhar were granted second time extension by respondent No.1 to join duties till 16.12.2019. – In August 2019 Dr. Deepika Sharma, who was as at serial No.1 in waiting list was given appointment as Dr. Sunil Kumar did not join within extended period – Petitioner approached respondent No.1 with request to offer her appointment since Dr. Apoorva Shekhar had not joined within extended period i.e. 16.12.2019. On 24.12.2019 further third time extension of 3 months and 15 days was granted to Dr. Nipuna Thakur for joining the post upto 31.03.2020. – Department of Personnel on having received matter regarding appointment of Veterinary Officer, advised respondent No.1 to give appointment to candidate in waiting list, in relaxation of rules. – Petitioner sent request vide email to respondent No.1 to issue her offer of appointment. – Petitioner again sent request vide email to respondent No.1 to know about status of her offer application. – Annexure P19, respondent No.1 rejected claim of petitioner for issuance of offer of appointment to post of Veterinary Officer – Held, Waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. – It is operative only for the contingency that if any of selected candidates does not join then person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. – This is so held by a Bench of three Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association vs. State of Gujarat and others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591. – Respondents-State illegally granted repeated extension, that too, beyond permissible limits to two doctors namely Dr. Apoorva Shekhar and Dr. Nipuna Thakur thereby depriving rights, that too, for no fault of candidates including the petitioner whose names were appearing in waiting list from joining before panel expired. – These candidates had a right of consideration when appointed candidates did not join and extension given to these appointed candidates to join was otherwise illegal and contrary to instructions issued by Government – Court is informed by Advocate General that the petitioner has already been appointed on batchwise basis and has also joined. – Court find no merit in this contention – Court find merit in this petition and same is allowed by quashing impugned notification and respondents are directed to appoint petitioner as a Veterinary Officer w.e.f. 17.12.2019 alongwith her seniority. – However, taking into consideration peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary claims in case appointment letter in her favour from aforesaid date is issued on or before 31.01.2021, failing which, petitioner shall also be entitled even to arrears alongwith interest at rate of 12% per annum, which shall be paid at first instance by officials-respondents and then made recovery from erring officials – Writ Petition Disposed of