Dismissed

Bhagat Ram v. Indian Institue of Advance

Himachal Pradesh HC24 Feb 2014CWP/725/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the appointment of a private respondent to a post of Assistant, alleging violation of eligibility criteria regarding age and experience. The court held that age was relaxed for reserved categories and noted the respondent possessed five years of relevant government experience in establishment matters, ensuring her eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The present petition was dismissed due to lack of merit in the challenge regarding the appointment.

Bhagat Ram Vs Indian Institue of Advance — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No.725/2013-C Decided on : February 24, 2014

¶3

Sh. Bhagat Ram …Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Indian Institute of Advance Study & Others …Respondents

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?1 No

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, A.S.G.I. for R-1.

¶11

Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate for R-2.

¶12

Sanjay Karol, J . (oral)

¶13

The scope of present petition was narrowed down only with regard to appointment of private respondent No.2 as an Assistant, in the Office of Indian Institute of Advance Study, Shimla. The Challenge is on the ground that the said appointment is in violation of the prescribed eligibility criteria.

¶14

Applications were invited by the respondent-Institute for appointment to the post of Assistant, prescribing the following eligibility criteria:-

¶15

Name of Post	Age	Qualification
Assistant	Between 18-28 years	Bachelor’s degree recognizedUniversity years’ experience in a Gov Semi-Government organiza Public Sector Undertaking, with establishment mattes accounts.	of with ernme tion o deali and	a 5 nt/ r a ng or

¶16

Private-respondent, undisputedly, was over age, but

¶17

however -respondent-Institute has relaxed the age for reserved Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

¶19

categories as per Govt. of India rules. The order was passed by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶20

It is urged that petitioner does not have 5 years experience in government/Semi-government organization. Undisputedly, private respondent has been working as PGT (Lecturer) in Biology and Hostel Warden on PTA in Government Senior Secondary School, Keylong from 13.7.2006 to 17.7.2012. Thus, private respondent sufficiently fulfills the criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of an Assistant. She has been dealing for more than five years with establishment matters in Government Senior Secondary School, which in my considered view, squarely makes the petitioner ineligible for appointment as Assistant. Whether her appointment is on regular/ contract or PTA basis would not matter. The prescribed condition is for experience especially required to handle the post in question. Private respondent has been satisfactorily discharging her duties in a government organization for more than five years.

¶21

For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the present petition, as such, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶22

February 24, 2014 (KS)

¶23

(Sanjay Karol), J.

Bhagat Ram v. Indian Institue of Advance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat Ram v. Indian Institue of Advance

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

Sumita @ Sunita Kashyap Vs Uco Bank

Yog Raj Vs LIC Housing Finance Limited

Jagdeep Sharma Vs State of Hp

Nishant Thakur Vs State of Hp

Madan Lal Vs State of Hp

Kalawati Vs State