Disposed

Yogesh Thakur v. Hp Staff Selection Commission

Himachal Pradesh HC25 May 2017CWP/476/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of five connected writ petitions challenging an interim order of the Administrative Tribunal. The court directed the Tribunal to consider eligibility at the first instance. The court also permitted the respondent commission to declare results of others while keeping petitioners' results sealed until the Tribunal decides the original application.

What did the court decide?

Interim order of administrative tribunal modified; petitioners' results kept in sealed cover; commission directed to fix dates for hearing merits before tribunal.

Yogesh Thakur Vs Hp Staff Selection… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

		CWP No.450 of 2017 alongwith Connected matters. Date of decision :25.05.2017
CWP No.450/2017
Pawan Thakur		… Petitioner Versus
Himachal Pradesh	Staff	Selection Commission …Respondent
CWP No.476/2017
Yogesh Thakur Himachal Pradesh	Staff	… Petitioner Versus Selection Commission and others
		…Respondents
CWP No.489/2017
Bandna Bhardwaj Himachal Pradesh	Staff	… Petitioner Versus Selection Commission …Respondent
CWP No.490/2017
Sneh Lata Himachal Pradesh	Staff	… Petitioner Versus Selection Commission …Respondent
CWP No.506/2017
Vijay Chauhan Himachal Pradesh	Staff	… Petitioner Versus Selection Commission …Respondent
CWP No.507/2017
Daleep Kumar		… Petitioner Versus
Himachal Pradesh	Staff	Selection Commission …Respondent

¶3

…2…

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶7

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate.

¶8

For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate.

¶9

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶10

Since identical issue arises for

¶11

consideration in the present petitions, facts of CWP No.450 of 2017 are being referred for deciding the same.

¶12

In this petition, petitioner lays challenge to the following interim order dated 15.3.2017, passed by the Ld. H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, in O.A. No.787 of 2017, titled as

¶13

Pawan Thakur vs. Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur:-

¶14

“Present: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate for the respondent.

¶15

Heard. Notice.

¶16

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

…3…

¶18

Ms. Archana Dutt, learned Standing Counsel waives service of notice on behalf of the sole respondent.

¶19

Reply be filed within four weeks.

¶20

Prayer for interim relief cannot be considered at this stage as the interview for the post in question, is already over.

¶21

However, selection/ appointment to the post of Surveyor shall be subject to the final outcome of the original application.

¶22

List on 26.04.2017.

¶23

Copy Dasti.”

¶24

On 18.3.2017, when the petition was

¶25

taken up for hearing, this Court passed the following interim order:-

¶26

“Issue notice. Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent. She prays for

¶27

…4…

¶28

and is granted three weeks’ time to file reply.

¶29

In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. and others versus Kerala Public Service Commission and others, (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 596 and judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.7164 of 2012, we are inclined to modify the impugned order dated 15.3.2017, passed by learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.3.2017 shall stand modified and the respondent is directed to interview the petitioner and the result shall be produced in sealed cover on the next date of hearing.

¶30

List on 10.4.2017.

¶31

Copy Dasti.”

¶32

From the response-affidavit so filed by

¶33

the State, it is seen that process for filling up 110 posts of Surveyor, by way of direct recruitment, already stands initiated by the Commission, in

¶34

…5…

¶35

fact almost completed, save and except that only

¶36

result is to be declared and consequential action taken thereafter.

¶37

Keeping in view the interest of justice as also parties, we dispose of the present petitions, with the following directions:-

¶38

(i) As to whether petitioners are otherwise eligible for the post in question or not, we are of the considered view that at the first instance, such fact ought to and should be considered by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly.

¶39

(ii) Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 31.5.2017, when a date shall be fixed for hearing the petitions on merit.

¶40

(iii) We request the Ld. Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of the main petition and preferably within a period of two months.

¶41

(iv) It shall be open for the respondents to declare the result of all candidates, save and

¶42

…6…

¶43

except, that of the petitioners, whose result shall be kept in a sealed cover and make appointments, in accordance with law. However, it be clarified in the letters of appointment that appointment(s) made, if any, shall be subject to the outcome of the petition in the original application as also any subsequent proceedings initiated there upon. (v) Needless to add, the Ld. Tribunal shall decide the issue uninfluenced of any observations made by this Court in our interim order reproduced supra.

¶44

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶45

Copy Dasti.

¶46

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.

¶47

May 25, 2017 (K S)

¶48

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.

Yogesh Thakur v. Hp Staff Selection Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Thakur v. Hp Staff Selection Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Chauhan Vs State of Hp

Kumari Priyanka Vs State of Hp

Hemant Kumar Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Chumana Devi Vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Others

Vikas Chauhan Vs Prabodh Saxena and Others

Pawan Thakur Vs Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission