Dismissed

Ravinder Kumar v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Oct 2010CWPOA/6653/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this constitutional writ petition challenging non-promotion to Naib Tehsildar (Sales) and declaring others' promotions illegal, the court held the decision was in accordance with recruitment rules. The roster point application was upheld, and the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no direction quashed; promotions of respondents No.2 & 3 upheld.

Ravinder Kumar Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

CWP(T) No. 6653/2008

¶2

04.10.2010 Present: Mr. Y. S. Thakur, vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶3

Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1 Mr. K. S. Banyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2

¶4

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

¶5

(i) That the decision conveyed vide memo dated 21.1.2000 may be quashed and set aside. The applicant may be held entitled to promotion as Naib Tehsildar (Sales). Respondents may be further directed to promote officers from the category of Assistant/ Accountant against the posts which fell vacant on 30.4.95 and 7.10.98.

¶6

(ii) That the promotion given to respondents No.2 & 3 vide orders dated 27.11.99 (Annexure A-4) and 17.12.99 (Annexure A-5) may be declared illegal and invalid and be quashed and set aside.

¶7

(iii) That respondent No.1 may be directed to produce entire record pertaining to the case before this Hon’ble Tribunal.”

¶8

Now, it cannot be disputed that for the post of Naib Tehsildar (Sales), the State of Himachal Pradesh has framed Rules known as “Himachal Pradesh, Relief & Rehabilitation Deptt. (Class-III Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). These posts were to be filled-up by promotion from amongst the Kanungos and Assistants/ Accountants. Immediately prior to the notification of the rules, posts of Naib Tehsildar were being filled-up by the Kanungos. For the posts which fell vacant after framing of the rules, roster point was adopted and the first post of Naib Tehsildar was filled-up by the feeder category of Assistants instead of Kanungos. This was so done as Kanungos had been promoted immediately prior to the notification of the rules. The second post which fell vacant was filled-up by the Kanungos. Third post was also to be filled up by the Kanungos

¶9

but however, since no eligible person amongst the Kanungos was available, therefore, by way of relaxation the said post was filled-up by an Assistant.

¶10

Thus, two persons from the feeder category of Assistants and one person from the feeder category of Kanungos were appointed as Naib Tehsildars. Consequently next two posts were required to be filled-up by Kanungos. This is precisely as per the roster point.

¶11

Respondents took action in accordance with the relevant rules and the attending circumstances. Consequently no fault can be found with the action taken by the respondents. It cannot be said that appointment of private respondent is dehors the rules. It cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioners stands violated. Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶12

( Sanjay Karol ), Judge

¶13

October 04, 2010 (rana)

Ravinder Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamko Devi Vs Mohinder Singh

Karam Singh Vs State

Jai Darshan Vs State

Susheel Kapoor Vs Ram Pal

Sanjay Kumar Vs State

Jai Singh Verma Vs State