The High Court of Himachal Pradesh directed respondent No.1 to decide the matter afresh regarding a competing claim for an Anganwari post. Pending an expedited decision by September 27, 2017, status quo is maintained.
Direction to respondent No.1 to decide the matter afresh by September 27, 2017; status quo maintained.
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 No. 619 of 2016 Date of decision: 15.9.2017
Seema Rohal
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others ..Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral )
Shorn of unnecessary details, it would be noticed that this Court while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner being CWP No. 7871 of 2010, had passed the following directions:
“Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Order dated 23.11.2010 is quashed and set aside. Secretary, Social Justice & Empowerment is ordered to look into the manner, in which order was passed in favour of petitioner on 17.4.2008 and also why respondent No.4, whose suitability was judged by the Selection Committee
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes
2
on 18.3.2008, has not been offered appointment till date. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.”
“……Without going into the details of distance, the principle of determination for this order remains a spirit of guidelines for selection which is for selection of a candidate through open competition, relaxation in exceptional circumstances, transfer can later and separately only in which single case of Anganwari Centre being within the feeder area of place of marriage of a existing worker. The transfer of Smt. Seema Rohal is an issue for granting exceptional relaxation of distance of a place of marriage over and already existing relaxation to a transfer in which first place whereas the case of Promila Devi falls into the provisions of the guidelines…”
3
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s) if any.
Copy dasti.
September 15, 2017 ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), (GR) Judge
(GR)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ambiguous order passed by Secretary (Social Justice and Empowerment) on 4.3.2016 requires the matter to be decided afresh.
Whether status quo should be maintained until the authorities make a decision on the competing claims for the same post.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Seema Rohal
State of H.P.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
