CWP/5153/2012 on 31 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.5153 of 2012

Decided on:31.12.2019 Sunil Kumar

…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others

....Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………………

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

For respondents: Mr Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami & Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for respondents No.7 & 8.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J (oral) Petitioner alleges fraud in the selection of Gram Rojgar Sewaks conducted in 2008 for Development Block, Amb, District Una & on this basis seeks quashing of appointment of selected candidates besides praying for handing over the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation and for registration of FIR.

2. On the basis of interview conducted on 4.7.2008, 17 Gram Rojgar Sewak were selected in Development Block, Amb, District Una, H.P. Certain complaints were preferred against the selections so made on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

the ground that less meritorious candidates had been selected. An inquiry was ordered to be conducted in the matter. The inquiry report dated 13.03.2011, was submitted by the Inquiry Officer/Authority to the Deputy Commissioner, Una, on 23.03.2011. The Deputy Commissioner vide his letter dated 28.04.2011, directed the Selection Committee to re-draw the merit-list.

The writ petitioner complained that no action on the said direction of the Deputy Commissioner had been taken. On these allegations the writ petition was filed seeking direction for registration of FIR as well as for quashing the selections/appointments of private respondents.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the termination orders of the private respondents were issued on the basis of above mentioned inquiry report and the same were challenged in CWP No.4107/2012. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 11.10.2017, whereunder, the termination orders were held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and were quashed. This position is not disputed before us.

5. Instant writ petition is primarily based upon the inquiry report dated 13.03.2011/23.3.2011, relying upon which, the termination orders of the private respondents were issued. Since termination orders have already

been quashed in CWP No.4107/2012, therefore, reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted to him. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse at an appropriate stage, if so advised. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (L. Narayana Swami),

Chief Justice

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua),

Judge 01st January, 2020 (rohit)