Himachal Pradesh High Court
CIVIL APPEAL 11190 of 2008 on 10 March 1994
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP(T) No. 11190 of 2008.
Decided on 22[nd] December, 2010.
Bhoop Singh.
…Petitioner.
-Versus-
State of H.P. and another.
…Respondents.
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.
__________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):
It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner was wrongly considered under the category of “General (OBC)”. However, the mistake was rectified after receipt of the legal notice by the State. He was re-considered after verifying the records under the category of “General (IRDP)”. However, on the basis of performance made by him collectively in the written test as well as in the personal interview, he could not qualify the final examination under the category of “General (IRDP)”. Since the petitioner’s name did not figure in the merit list of “General (IRDP)”, he cannot be directed to be admitted to the Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course.
2. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
December 22, 2010. (bhupender)
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he was engaged as Helper on daily wage basis on 01.06.1988. F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and four more persons, namely, Prakash Chand, Het Ram, Tara Singh and Beli Ram bearing No. 16/1994, dated 10.03.1994 at Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. Consequently, the challan was put up in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli at Solan on 19.03.1994. According to the reply filed by the respondents, a theft of 53 Khair Billets took place in the night of 09.03.1994 from Kainchi More Road Side (Kassal) Depot of Kunihar Forest Division. The petitioner was on duty on that day. The learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner on 30[th] September, 2002. According to the petitioner, no notice was ever issued to him at the time of terminating his services.
2. What emerges from the facts pleaded by the parties, is that the petitioner has not reported for duties w.e.f. 10[th]March, 1994. The present petition has been filed in the month of September, 2003. According to the case of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has himself abandoned his job. There is merit in the plea raised by the respondent-Corporation. In case the petitioner had been retrenched in 1994, he ought to have filed the petition expeditiously within a period of six months to one year. He has waited for long nine years before approaching the learned Tribunal. It is, thus, evident from the conduct of the petitioner that he has abandoned the job. He has not entered into any correspondence with the respondent-Corporation from 1994 till 2003, except when he made a representation after he was acquitted by the Criminal Court on 27.03.2003. Petitioner has also not placed any tangible evidence on record to conclusively prove that he had completed more than 240 days at the time of his retrenchment. In these circumstances, the petition is barred by delay and laches and the same is not maintainable after 9 long years.
3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the present petition, with
liberty reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No. 1 against the issuance of Annexure A-1 within a period of three weeks from today. Thereafter, the same shall be decided by the respondent No. 1, in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, within a further period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No. costs.
Copy dasti, on usual terms.