Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK – Appellant
Versus
SUBASH CHAND S/O SH. PREM CHAND – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 117 of 2020
Decided On : 31-05-2022
H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 – Section 72 – Appeal - Ex servicemen – Defendant-Bank – Appellant – Entitled for declaration – Whether learned lower appellate court ignored settled law that once a candidate had applied for post under one category he cannot claim for same post under any other category – Whether learned lower appellate court being last court of fact has failed to consider entire oral as well as documentary evidence and law applicable in this behalf, as post for which plaintiff had put forward was to be advertised through Special Ex servicemen Cell in labor and employment department of State Government – Whether impugned judgments and decrees are result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of statement - Court find that no Question of Law, muchless Substantial Question of Law, is made out for admission and adjudication of the appeal (Para 14).
Finding of the Court :
From aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that despite applicability of 200-Point Roster and availability of vacant posts for Ex-servicemen as per said Roster, there was no provision made in Application Form to enable Ex-serviceman Sub-Staff employees to apply against post meant for Ex-serviceman in 200-Point Roster and further that for filling up posts from amongst in-service candidates names were not to be sponsored by Special Ex-servicemen Cell but such posts were to be identified in recruitment process and option to Ex-serviceman in-service candidates was to be provided to apply against such posts and DW-1, in his statement, has admitted aforesaid facts and procedure required to be adopted – There is no illegality or perversity in impugned judgment and decree warranting framing of Substantial Questions of Law as proposed.
Results: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
1. In present appeal, filed by the defendant-Bank - appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant-Bank’), judgment and decree dated 26.12.2019, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No. 56-D/XII/2019, tilted as The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank v. Subhash Chand and another, whereby judgment and decree dated 27.5.2019, passed by Civil Judge-II, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 523 of 2013, titled as Subhash Chand v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank and another, has been affirmed partly, directing that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) is entitled for declaration that he is entitled for the post in the special drive against the quota of Ex-serviceman and the defendant-Bank shall, after ascertaining quota of Ex-serviceman and the vacant roster points available on that day when the posts were advertised for other categories, if any vacant roster point was available for Ex-serviceman, consider the plaintiff for appointment against that post as per Rules by giving him all consequential benefits, with further direction to the defendant- Bank to carry out such exercise within two months from the passing of the judgment and decree, i.e. 26.12.2019.
2. Defendant-Bank has filed the present appeal by proposing the following Substantial Questions of Law:
b. Whether the learned lower appellate court being last court of fact has failed to consider the entire oral as well as documentary evidence and law applicable in this behalf, as the post for which plaintiff had put forward was to be advertised through Special Ex servicemen Cell in the labor and employment department of the State Government?
c. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of statement of DW-1 Sh. Navneet Sharma?”
3. For request made on behalf of the parties, appeal has been heard at admission stage.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Plaintiff, who is an Ex-serviceman, is a Sub-Staff employee of the defendant-Bank and has been appointed against post meant for Ex-serviceman. Admittedly, in the posts of Grade- IV advertised by the defendant-Bank to be filled from amongst eligible Sub-Staff of the defendant-Bank under 15% quota (one time relaxation), governed by 200-Point Roster for reservation, not even a single post was advertised as post reserved for Exserviceman and in the Procedure and Application Form circulated vide Communication dated 2.6.2012 (Ex. P-7), there was no provision and/or Column in the Procedure or in Application Form to tick the category and sub-category as Ex-serviceman. In the categories mentioned in the Application Form, there are only four vertical categories, i.e. General, SC, ST, OBC, whereas in subcategory only category is PH-Ortho. Plaintiff being a General Category candidate, but an Ex-serviceman, thus, was having no other option but to mention his category as ‘General’.
6. Plaintiff made representation by issuing Legal Notice, under Section 72 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (Ex. P-8) to the defendant-Bank, asking the defendant-Bank to apply 200-Point Roster to the proposed Grade-IV posts to be filled from amongst the eligible Sub-Staff and to provide posts to the Exserviceman serving in the Sub-Staff.
7. Reply dated 10.12.2012 (Ex.P-10) to the aforesaid notice was given by defendant-Bank, stating therein that the Bank has conducted Limited Direct Recruitment for the posts of Grade- IV from amongst the eligible Sub-Staff and there is recognized Policy for the recruitment of candidates belonging to Exserviceman Category and further that as per Policy the posts reserved for Ex-se
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
