SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(HP) 526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya, JJ.
Badal Chauhan, S/o Atma Ram Chauhan and Ors. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh, Through Secretary (PWD) and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 6315, 4902 of 2021
Decided On : 14-12-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sh. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate With Mr. Harsh Kalta And Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. With Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Sr. Addl. A.G. With Mr. Vinod Thakur, Addl. A.G. Mr. Bhupidner Thakur, Dy.A.G And Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate

Headnote:

Employment and Service matter - Recruitment and Promotion Rules - Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission - Post of JE(C) - Termination of petitioners vide office order quashed and set aside - That petitioners may be declared to constitute a class separate, and law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in Puneet Sharma’s case and directed to be implemented through judgment by this Hon’ble Court, may be declared as not applicable in peculiar facts and circumstances to the present petitioners - Held, Respondents had only two options either to assail verdict or to implement it in letter and spirit. Respondents having chosen latter, had no occasion to have any further deliberation than to implement judgment as it is - As regards grievance of petitioners having been denied right of hearing, court find that in given facts and circumstances especially contractual nature of their appointments, neither such exercise was required nor has caused any prejudice to petitioners. In any case, petitioners have been afforded sufficient opportunity by this Court to address their grievances, but they have not been able to persuade us as to prejudice, if any, caused to them by denying them opportunity of hearing by respondents - Admittedly, vacancies advertised vide post code 695 by HPSSC have been filled. Other subsequent vacancies, if any, can neither be made part of this adjudication nor do we hold such jurisdiction in exercise of our restrictive powers of judicial review. To do so will mean foreclosure of rights of unknown number of eligible persons – Petitions dismissed

ORDER :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment. The only distinguishing fact in CWP 4902 of 2021 is that the petitioner in said case though had cleared the cut off criteria but had not been offered the appointment. To maintain clarity, facts in CWP 6315 of 2021 are being taken into consideration.

2. The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (in short “HPSSC”) vide Advertisement No. 34-1/2018 dated 27.06.2018 invited applications from eligible candidates for various posts in different Departments/Boards/Corporations of Government of Himachal Pradesh, including 123 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) [for short “JE(C)”] in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (for short, “HPPWD”) against post Code No. 695. The number of declared vacancies were later increased to 125.

3. Government of Himachal Pradesh has framed Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of J.E (C), Class-III, Non-Gazetted in HPPWD (for short, “R&P Rules”). The essential qualifications for the post of J.E (C), as per R&P Rules, are as under : -

    “Essential Qualifications:

(i) Should have passed matriculation examination or its equivalent from a recognized Board/University.

(ii) Regular full time Diploma in Civil Engineering (three years) or its equivalent from an institution/University duly recognized by the Central or State Government.”

Correspondingly, the HPSSC, vide advertisement dated 27.6.2018, prescribed essential qualification for the post of JE(C). Nonetheless, certain candidates with graduation in Civil Engineering (for short, “Graduate Engineers”) also submitted their applications.

4. HPSSC conducted written objective type test on 18.11.2018. Total 385 candidates qualified the screening test. Evaluation process was undertaken from 09.04.2019 to 12.04.2019. HPSSC rejected the candidature of all those candidates, who were not possessing regular three years Diploma in Civil Engineering. HPSSC declared result on 27.9.2019 and total 102 candidates including the petitioners qualified.

5. Petitioners and other selected candidates were issued appointment letters in the months of January and February, 2020. Petitioners joined their respective places of posting. 23 posts of J.E(C) still remained vacant.

6. The graduate engineers whose candidature was rejected by the HPSSC, for not possessing three years regular Diploma in Civil Engineering, had approached this Court by way of various Civil Writ Petitions, detail of which is as under: -

    “CWP No. 2801/2019, CWP No. 2788/2019, CWP No. 2940/2019, CWP No. 2946/2019, CWP No. 3093/2021, CWP No. 3415/2019 and CWP No. 2141/2020.”

The main grievance of Graduate Engineers was that they held higher qualification and therefore, were also eligible for the post of JE (C).

7. This court in a bunch of writ petitions with the lead case being CWP No. 138 of 2020 titled Robin Kumar and others Vs State of H.P and others, while dealing with an identical issue pertaining to recruitment of Junior Engineers (Electrical) in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, had negated the claim of Graduate Engineers. The judgment of this court was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment passed in Puneet Sharma Vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 2221 and the Graduate Engineers were held eligible for the post of Junior Engineer along with Diploma Engineers.

8. Accordingly, all the above noted petitions filed by graduate engineers were decided by this Court by a common judgment dated 05.07.2021 in the following terms: -

    “The parties are at ad - idem that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma & Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Ors., AIR 2021 SC 2221.

2. Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment, the ratio whereof shall apply mutatis mutandis to all t

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  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

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top