Allowed

Santosh v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC25 Oct 2017CWP/7563/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a writ petition concerning recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant. A board's report confirmed the petitioner ranked first among candidates. The court directed immediate appointment of the petitioner without disturbing existing employees and awarded her seniority from the date the incumbents were appointed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner appointed as Technical Assistant forthwith; granted seniority from date incumbent technical assistants were appointed.

Santosh Vs State — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 7563 of 2012 Decided on: 25.10.2017 Santosh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶6

For the petitioner:	Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate.	with
For the respondents:	Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G. respondents No. 1 to 3.	for
	Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate respondent No. 4.	, for

¶7

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶8

The Board constituted vide order dated 15.09.2017 has

¶9

submitted its report in a sealed cover which is opened in the presence of the parties in the open Court.

¶10

On perusal of the report, it transpires that petitioner has ranked 1^st by securing 69.17 marks whereas respondent No. 4 has ranked 2^nd by securing 66.59 marks and respondent No. 5 has secured 3^rd position by securing 61.92 marks.

¶11

It is not in dispute that respondents No. 4 and 5 are already working as Technical Assistants (Takniki Sahayaks) and it is only the petitioner who is unemployed.

¶12

¶13

At this stage, the learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 21.10.2017, received from the office of the Block Development Officer, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., wherein, it has been specifically stated that one post of Technical Assistant (Takniki Sahayak) is lying vacant for the last about 3 years and there would be no financial hardship to the office, in case, the post is ordered to be filled up. The communication is made part of the record.

¶14

The petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Technical Assistant (Takniki Sahayak) forthwith without disturbing respondents No. 4 and 5.

¶15

Since, the petitioner has been diligently pursuing the instant litigation, she will be entitled to seniority from the date respondents No. 4 and 5 have been appointed.

¶16

Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

¶17

Copy dasti .

¶18

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan),

¶19

October 25, 2017

¶20

sanjeev

Santosh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh v. State

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

Manish Chauhan Vs Ved Prakash Kaushish

Murari Lal Thakur Vs Central University of Hp

National Insurance Co. Vs Parwati

Gram Panchayat Tungadhar Vs State

Lac Vs Gian Chand

Suraj Sharma Vs Rakesh Kumar and Another