High Court Bench set aside impugned orders against petitioner Des Raj governing teacher appointments, directing further inquiry per Director's instruction and cited precedents within three months.
Impugned orders set aside; respondent directed to consider petitioner's case afresh within three months of judgment production after hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP (T) No. 14154 of 2008 Decided on 13.12.2010
Des Raj ..…Petitioner . Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
| For the Petitioner | : Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For respondents | : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate |
| General for respondents No. 1 | |
| to 3 | |
| Ms Ranjana Parmar, counsel for respondent No.6. |
V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral)
The learned Dy. Advocate General has produced a communication dated 10th December, 2010, addressed to the learned Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh, by the Director, Elementary Education, which is taken on record after supplying copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.No.
2
titled Madan Mohan Verma vs. State of H.P. and others , text
whereof is as follows:-
”In these cases, the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Inquiry Committee and the Deputy Commissioner(s).
“Refer to letter No. EDN-Kha(7)3706-1 dated 3.9.2009 from the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed to this directorate and copy endorsed to you and others vide which the government has asked to move an application immediate before the chairman of the concerned enquiry committee in view of the decision of CWP No. 525/2009 titled as Ravinder Singh Vs. State and CWP No. 2632/2009 titled as Koyal Kumar Vs. State wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh while setting aside the orders of the committee has directed that Committee after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other respondents can look into the matter and decide whether the appointment of the petitioner was valid or not. The committee while deciding the issue will keep into consideration of observation of the Hon’ble High Court made in CWPs. The copy of the judgment/orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2632/2009 titled as Koyal Kumar Vs. State is also being sent to all the Deputy Directors.
Therefore, you are directed to comply with the directions of the Government and take action in the matter accordingly.”
3
also similarly situate as the petitioners were in the judgment(s) referred to hereinabove, his case shall also be considered by the respondents/competent authority, in the light of the said judgment, particularly CWP No. 1939 of 2009, titled Madan Mohan Verma vs. State of H.P. and others, in accordance with law and justice after hearing the petitioner and private respondent No.6, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner and giving them an opportunity to submit additional materials, if any, if so desired/advised.
4
Copy dasti.
(V.K. Sharma) Judge 13th December, 2010. Lsp*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is similarly situated to petitioners in CWP No. 1576 of 2007 and governed by that judgment.
Whether the impugned orders of the Inquiry Committee must be set aside in light of the Director's communication and prior judgments.
Whether the respondents must consider the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Preeta Chauhan vs. State of H.P. and othersReferred¶9
CWP No. 1576 of 2007, Preeta Chauhan vs. State of H.P. and others etc. etc.
Madan Mohan Verma vs. State of H.P. and othersReferred¶9
CWP No. 1939 of 2009, Madan Mohan Verma vs. State of H.P. and others
Ravinder Singh Vs. StateReferred¶16
CWP No. 525/2009 Ravinder Singh Vs. State
Koyal Kumar Vs. StateReferred¶16
CWP No. 2632/2009 Koyal Kumar Vs. State
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Des Raj
State of Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V.K. Sharma
Parties & counsel
