Allowed

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Dr.P.C.Kapoor

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Mar 2011COPC/214/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a promotion petition by directing the State Government to supply documents to the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The respondents were directed to conduct the Departmental Promotion Committee for 23 vacancies within two weeks and issue promotion orders within one week of receiving recommendations.

What did the court decide?

State Government directed to supply documents to HC Public Service Commission within one week. Respondents directed to hold DPC for 8 and 15 posts within two weeks. Promotion orders to be issued withi

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs Dr.P.C.Kapoor — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

COPC No. 214/2010

¶3

Decided on:3.3.2011

¶4

¶5

Ashok Kumar and others. …Petitioners.

¶6

Versus Dr. P.C. Kapoor and another. …Respondents.

¶7

________________________________________________________

¶8

Coram:

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶11

For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate with Mr. Kuldip Sharma, Under Secretary (H.P. State Public Service Commission) for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) .

¶16

In sequel to order dated 23.2.2011, respondent No.2 has filed the reply. Relevant portion of para 3 whereof reads thus:

¶17

“However, the H.P. Public Service Commission is ready to convene the meeting of review D.P.C. for promotions to the number of posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to be intimated by the Government (Department of Public Works) in their proposal, at the earliest.”

¶18

In view of the fair stand adopted by respondent

¶19

No.2, State Government is directed to supply all the

¶20

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶21

¶22

documents to the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission within a period of one week from today for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers. It is made clear that respondent No.2 shall hold Departmental Promotion Committee for filling up 8 vacancies, which were lying vacant in the year 1996 and 15 posts in the year 2006, strictly as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules prevalent at that time. Respondent No.2 immediately after the receipt of papers from the State shall complete process within a period of two weeks and thereafter shall make the recommendations to the State Government. The State Government shall issue necessary promotion orders within a period of one week after the receipt of recommendations by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.

¶23

The Court appreciates the promptitude and fairness with which this matter has been dealt with by respondents No.1 and 2. The stand of respondents No.1 and 2 strengthens the rule of law.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.

¶25

(Rajiv Sharma), Judge.

¶26

3.3.2011 awasthi

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Dr.P.C.Kapoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Dr.P.C.Kapoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santokh Singh Vs Pawan Kumar

Shiv Raj Singh Vs State

Hem Prakash Vs Bharat Khera

Parkasho Devi Vs State

Parsino Devi Vs Thunia

Nisha Devi Vs State