Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar v. Savitri Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Jun 2017LPA/8/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Letters Patent Appeal against a judgment quashing a teacher's termination order was dismissed. The High Court held that both appellants lacked locus standi to file the appeal, as the earlier inquiry into eligibility had attained finality and the second appellant no longer held the relevant office.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed as appellants have no locus standi; pending applications disposed of.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Savitri Devi — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

LPA No. 8 of 2017

¶3

Decided on: 19.6.2017

¶4

Sanjeev Kumar and another. …Appellants. Versus Savitri Devi and others. …Respondents. _____________________________________________________________

¶5

Coram:

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Appellants: Mr. Amar Deep Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: None for respondent No.1. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Kush Sharma, Dy.A.Gs for respondents No. 2 to 4.

¶8

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral):

¶9

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Writ Court on 5.12.2016 whereby termination order of respondent No.1 dated 4.5.2013 was quashed and she was directed to be reinstated with all the consequential benefits.

¶10

A preliminary objection of the locus of the

¶11

appellants to maintain the appeal has been raised by

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

respondent No.1 on the ground that appellant No.1 was not qualified/eligible for appointment as a Drawing Teacher when interviews were held or the applications were invited and as regards appellant No.2 he was the Pradhan (President) of School Management Committee (for short ‘SMC’) and is not holding the said post at present and, therefore, the instant appeal at the instance of appellants is not maintainable.

¶15

It would be noticed that initially appellant No.1 was not a party to the Writ Petition and had sought his impleadment by moving an application bearing CMP No. 13442 of 2013 on the ground that respondent No.1 had obtained the appointment by playing fraud on the authorities.

¶16

It is not in dispute that appellant No.1 in the year 2007 made a similar complaint against respondent No.1, however, when no action was being taken on this complaint, he filed CWP No. 2082 of 2007 and this Court vide order dated 21.4.2008 directed the State to constitute a committee and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. It is further not in dispute that pursuant to such directions, the Chairman (SDM), PTA

¶17

¶18

Inquiry Committee conducted a detailed inquiry and vide order dated 10.10.2008 held appellant No.1 to be ineligible as he could not produce the original diploma certificate issued by the recognized University and accordingly the appointment of respondent No.1 as Drawing Teacher was upheld and ordered to be accepted by the PTA. This would be evidently clear from a perusal of the operative portion of the order, which

¶19

reads thus:

¶20

“Keeping in view of the facts stated as above a comparative list of marks was prepared as per the parameters decided vide Govt. of H.P. Notification No. EDN.A.Kha (7) 3/2006 dated 27.5.2008. Smt. Savitri Devi appointed candidate was having Diploma/Certificate in Drawing Teacher and as noted on the interview sheet by the PTA committee that Shri Sanjeev Kumar could not produce the original diploma certificate issued by the Recognized University at the time of interview held on 20.9.2007 and due to which he was not eligible, therefore, the appointment of Smt. Savitri Devi as Drawing Teacher may be accepted by the PTA authority.”

¶21

Indubitably, the order so passed by the SDM

¶22

on 10.10.2008 has attained finality and, therefore, appellant No.1 has no locus standi to file the present appeal.

¶23

¶24

As regards appellant No.2, he too has no

¶25

locus standi to file and maintain the instant appeal as he no longer is the President of the SMC.

¶26

In addition to the above, no cause of action has jointly accrued in favour of the appellants so as to enable them to file this joint appeal.

¶27

Lastly, even if the merits of the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court are gone into even then the appellants have no cause as it has been clearly held by the learned Writ Court that the selection of respondent No.1 was in accordance with law. It has been categorically found that out of four candidates, three candidates, including respondent No.1 and appellant No.1 were called for interview wherein respondent No.1 obtained the maximum marks.

¶28

As observed earlier, the selection of respondent No.1 was unsuccessfully assailed by appellant No.1 and the findings rendered by the Chairman (SDM), PTA Inquiry Committee dated 10.10.2008 passed in compliance to the directions issued by this Court, have admittedly attained finality and thus is not open to challenge.

¶29

¶30

Having said so, we find no merits in this

¶31

appeal and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶32

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice

¶33

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.

¶34

19.6.2017

¶35

awasthi

Sanjeev Kumar v. Savitri Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. Savitri Devi

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

Northern Regional Committee Vs Shimla Education Trust

Ashok Singh Vs State of Hp

Amar Nath Vs State of Hp

Lachhman Singh Vs State

Shyam Lal Vs State

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp