Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/2294/2019 of ANU KUMARI Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 31 December 2019
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2294 of 2019 alongwith CWP No.2403 of 2019 Decided on: 31.12.2019 CWP No.2294 of 2019: Anu Kumari ....…......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others .....Respondents _____________________________________________________________ CWP
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ATSHIMLA
CWP No.2294 of 2019 alongwith CWP No.2403 of 2019
Decided on: 31.12.2019
CWP No.2294 of 2019:Anu Kumari
....…......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.....Respondents _____________________________________________________________
CWP No.2403 of 2019:Usha Devi ....…......PetitionerVersus State of Himachal Pradesh and another.....Respondents _____________________________________________________________
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. AdditionalAdvocate General, for therespondents/State.
_____________________________________________________________
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral).
Since common questions of law and facts areinvolved in these writ petitions relating to batch-wise 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
recruitment, therefore, the same are taken up together for disposal.
2. The writ petition (CWP No.2294 of 2019) has been preferred mainly with the following prayers:- “i)That the respondents may kindly be directedto place on record rejection letter issued tothe petitioner and same be quashed and setaside being illegal, null and void.to place on record rejection letter issued tothe petitioner and same be quashed and setaside being illegal, null and void.
ii)That the respondents be directed to considerthe case of the petitioner on batch-wise basisunder ward of Ex-serviceman (OBC) categoryand allow the petitioner to submit documentsto respondents No.1 to 3 and offerappointment, if found eligible she may be” the case of the petitioner on batch-wise basisunder ward of Ex-serviceman (OBC) categoryand allow the petitioner to submit documentsto respondents No.1 to 3 and offerappointment, if found eligible she may be”
3. The case of the petitioner (in CWP No.2294 of2019) is that a requisition was sent by respondent No.2,Director Health Services to respondent No.4, EmploymentExchange, for sponsoring the names of eligible candidatesfor filling up various posts of Staff Nurses purely on contractbasis under various categories, including OBC/SC categories,to be filled up on batch-wise basis under Ward of Ex-servicemen categories. The name of the petitioner AnuKumari (in CWP No.2294 of 2019) was to be sponsored forthe post of Staff Nurse under OBC category, whereas, thename of petitioner Usha Devi (in CWP No.2403 of 2019) wasto be sponsored for the post of Pharmacist Ward of Ex- serviceman under SC category. The respondent/Employment Exchange concerned was required to submitthe names of the eligible candidates to respondent No.2before 30[th] May, 2019. Though the name of petitioners AnuKumari and Usha Devi were registered with the EmploymentExchange, Amb & Nadaun, respectively, however, by way ofinadvertence their names could not be sponsored by theEmployment Exchange concerned. Therefore, the petitionersdirectly appeared before the Counselling Committee on05.09.2019, but, the candidatures of the petitioners werenot considered by respondent No.2 on the ground that theirnames were not sponsored by the Employment Exchangeconcerned.
4. Without going into the merits of the contentionsraised on behalf of the petitioners, in both the writ petitions,in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to direct therespondents to hold counselling of the petitioners for theposts in question, within a period of two weeks from today.In case the petitioners fulfil the eligibility criteria, therespondents shall consider and take conscious decision intheir matter, in accordance with law, for their batch-wiseappointments in question.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, thepresent writ petitions stand disposed of, so also pendingmiscellaneous application(s), if any.
Copy 'Dasti'.
Conclusion
(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice
December 31, 2019
(Yashwant)
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge