WRIT PETITION 132 of 2010 on 19 September 1986

Conclusion

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP No. 132 of 2010

Decided on: December 30, 2010.

Baljeet Singh & anr. ….Petitioners

Versus

HPSEB & ors.

….Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.

For the petitioners:

Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. K. S.Banyal, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)

The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i). That the impugned provision of Rule 5(1) of the Ex-Servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules, 1985 as notified vide notification dated 19.9.1986 (Annexure P-2) and adopted by respondent Board vide notification dated 27.9.1986 (Annexure P-1) may kindly be struck down as unconstitutional and ultra-vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; ii) That seniority assigned to the respondents No. 2 to 5 by counting their past service on the basis of impugned provision of Rules at Annexure P-2, above the petitioners vide orders at Annexures P-4 and P-5 may kindly be quashed and consequently their promotions to the higher posts on the basis of such seniority may also be quashed; iii) that the respondent Board may be directed to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post(s) to which respondents No. 2 to 5 have been considered before promotion of petitioners from time to time, with all consequential benefits;”

2. The issue in principle has been considered by this Court leading to the judgment in V.K.Behl and others vs. State of H.P. & others, reported in 2009 Latest HLJ 402. The learned standing counsel submits that the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court. The parties agree that the Writ Petition can be disposed of with the direction to the respondents to take appropriate action, subject to the outcome of the matter now pending before the Supreme Court. Ordered accordingly, making it clear that subject to the outcome of the decision in the Supreme Court, appropriate action will be taken by the respondents within another two months.

3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

Copy Dasti.

(Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice.

December 30, 2010. (karan)

( Justice V.K. Sharma ), Judge.