RAI SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF HP AND ANR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8405 of 2021 Between:
1. MR. RAI SINGH, S/O MR. MOHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE DHAR CHANNA, TEHSIL KUPUI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
2. MRS. RAKSHA DEVI, WD/O PSITHI CHAND, R/O VILLAGE KUTHARI, P.O. GHASNI, TEHSIL TIKKAR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
3. MS. PUSHPA DEVI, D/O GANGA DASS, R/O VILLAGE PANERU CHECK, P.O. KOTIGHAT, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
4. MS. KAMLA DEVI, WD/O OF LATE GULAB SINGH, R/O VILLAGE DALOG, P.O. NARIAN, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
5. MS. BLASU DEVI, WD/O LATE NEHAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE JAKHAI, P.O. KHASHDHAR, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
6. MS. JOBAN DEVI, WD/O BABU RAM, R/O VILLAGE RAWOSI, POST OFFICE GAWSARI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HP.
7. MR. HEM RAJ, S/O SH. KALMI NAND, VILLAGE BIJORI, P.O. SEEMA, TEHSIL ROHRU, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
8. MS. NARVADA WD/O RAM KRISHAN, R/O VILLAGE BHAGAYLI, POST OFFICE TIYALI, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
….PETITIONERS.
(BY. MR. BALWANT SINGH, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P.
SHIMLA-2, H.P.
2. THE DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H.P.
….RESPONDENTS.
(BY M/S DINESH THAKUR, SUMESH RAJ AND SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL,)
Whether approved for reporting?1 No This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5383 of 2014, titled as Batti Devi & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 09.04.2015. He prays that it will be in the interest of justice in case this petition is disposed of with the direction that the grievance which has been raised by the petitioners by way of present petition be considered by the respondents in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Batti Devi’s Case (supra).

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the same shall be done, but consideration of the matter of the petitioners should not be construed as if the State admits that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment being relied upon. Ordered accordingly.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction that the case of the petitioners shall be considered by the appropriate Authority by taking into consideration the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.5383 of 2014. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioners are similarly situated or not as the petitioners in CWP No. 5383 of 2014 and the appropriate Authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate decision in the case of the petitioners in the light of the facts involved in their cases. Needful be done within a period of six weeks from today.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

June 3, 2022 (Ajay Mohan Goel)

(vinod) Judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document