Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/5153/2012 of SUNIL KUMAR Vs STATE on 31 December 2019
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.
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 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 JusticeThe 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. RittaGoswami & Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, AdditionalAdvocates General, for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondentNo.6.Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, forrespondents No.7 & 8.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J (oral)
Petitioner alleges fraud in the selection of Gram RojgarSewaks conducted in 2008 for Development Block, Amb, District Una & onthis basis seeks quashing of appointment of selected candidates besidespraying for handing over the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation andfor registration of FIR.
2. On the basis of interview conducted on 4.7.2008, 17 GramRojgar Sewak were selected in Development Block, Amb, District Una,H.P. Certain complaints were preferred against the selections so made on 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
the ground that less meritorious candidates had been selected. An inquirywas ordered to be conducted in the matter. The inquiry report dated13.03.2011, was submitted by the Inquiry Officer/Authority to the DeputyCommissioner, Una, on 23.03.2011. The Deputy Commissioner vide hisletter dated 28.04.2011, directed the Selection Committee to re-draw themerit-list.
The writ petitioner complained that no action on the saiddirection of the Deputy Commissioner had been taken. On these allegationsthe writ petition was filed seeking direction for registration of FIR as wellas for quashing the selections/appointments of private respondents.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gonethrough the record.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that thetermination orders of the private respondents were issued on the basis ofabove mentioned inquiry report and the same were challenged in CWPNo.4107/2012. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated11.10.2017, whereunder, the termination orders were held to be violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India and were quashed. This position isnot disputed before us.
5. Instant writ petition is primarily based upon the inquiry reportdated 13.03.2011/23.3.2011, relying upon which, the termination orders ofthe private respondents were issued. Since termination orders have already been quashed in CWP No.4107/2012, therefore, reliefs prayed for by thepetitioner 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 anappropriate stage, if so advised. The writ petition is accordingly disposedof, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(L. Narayana Swami),
Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua),Judge
01[st] January, 2020 (rohit)