Himachal Pradesh High Court
ORIGINAL PETITION 313 of 2010 on 30 December 2010
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.
COPC No.313 of 2010.
30.12.2010 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-contemnors.
Rejoinder taken on record. Respondents
made the following averments in para 3 of the reply which reads as under :- “ That it is further submitted that since presently against the 10 % assigned quota for promotion to the post of Clerk, the Department was/is already having in-service promoted Class-IV employees without any vacancy left against the said quota, the petitioners in response to their Legal Notice dated 5.9.2010, Annexure P-4 stood informed about this factual position alongwith the fact of revised amended R&P Rules and also specifically that the names of eligible Class-IV employees including the Petitioners will be considered for their further promotion to the posts of Clerk on availability of vacancies against the reserved 10% quota strictly on the basis of their inter-se-seniority prepared and maintained by the Department subject to their fulfilling their other eligibility criteria by the replying Respondent through Ld. Counsel vide registered letter No.HFW-H(1)B(4) Court Cases/2009, dated 13.10.2010. The attested photocopy of the registered letter dated 13.10.2010 is also placed on record as Annexure R-2/II for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.”
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents have violated the orders dated 30.4.2010 passed by this Court. The category to which petitioners belongs has not been considered for filling up the prescribed 10% quota.
3. Reply filed by the respondents is evidently and unambiguously clear. As and when the posts fall vacant, respondents shall consider the petitioners’ case in accordance with law. Further, in the original petition petitioners have not assailed the promotion of the persons who stood promoted against 10% quota. If petitioners are aggrieved of the same, it is always open to them to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In my view, no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping this petition pending as there is no wilfull disobedience of any order. Consequently, the same is disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge
December 30, 2010
cs