Disposed

Pratima Kumari v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Mar 2022CWP/1818/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a writ petition challenging non-recommendation of a pharmacist candidate aged over 45. The Court directed the recruiting authority to consider the petitioner's case after the Employment Exchange sponsored her name under a new age proviso.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 2 to consider petitioner's case for appointment within one month by passing a speaking order.

Pratima Kumari Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 11^th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

¶8

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1818 OF 2021

¶9

Between :-

¶10

PRATIMA KUMARI, AGED 50 YEARS, WIFE OF RAKESH CHANDEL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHADROG (DELAG), P.O. NASWAL, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY MR. R.L. CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171 002.

¶15

2. DIRECTOR OF , HEALTH SERVICES, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA-171 009.

¶16

3. SUB-OFFICE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P., THROUGH ITS INCHARGE.

¶17

4. SHRI NARENDER SINGH, SON OF SHRI KANSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAGYAR, P.O. TIHRA, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.-

¶18

¶19

175 026.

¶20

5. SHRI UMESH SHARMA, SON OF SHRI RAMESHWAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILAGE & P.O. SERATHANA, TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.-176 056.

¶21

6. SHRI LABH SINGH, SON OF SHRI MAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGLIYARA, P.O. LAMBATHACH, TEHSIL THUNAG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶22

7. RAKESH KUMAR, SON OF SHRI BANSI LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAKOH, P.O. KUTHANDAL, TEHSIL FATEHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.-176 022.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH MR. VIKAS RATHORE, MS. RITTA GOSWAMI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR R-1 TO R-3.

¶25

MR. ANUP RATTAN, ADVOCATE, FOR FOR R-5.

¶26

MR. PRASHANT SHARMA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-6.)

¶27

¶28

This petition coming on for admission this day,

¶29

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua , passed the following :

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The name of the petitioner was registered in

¶32

respondent No. 3/Employment Exchange. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 did not recommend her name to respondent No. 2 for 190 posts of Pharmacists advertised by

¶33

¶34

respondents No. 1 and 2 in the year 2020 for counselling on the ground that she had crossed the age of 45 years.

¶35

2. In its reply filed to the writ petition, respondent No. 3 has submitted that respondent No. 2 sent a requisition to respondent No. 3 for sponsoring the names of eligible candidates for posts of Pharmacists (Allopathy) to be recruited on batchwise basis. As per para 7 of requisition, the age limit of a candidate should have been between 18 to 45 years. The petitioner was above 45 years of age and hence, ineligible to be sponsored. Therefore, her name was not sponsored by respondent No. 3 in the list of sponsored candidates, dated 11.12.2020.

¶36

3. Respondent No. 3 further submitted in the reply that as per latest requisition dated 09.07.2021, petitioner’s name has now been sponsored at Sr. No. 6 for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy). This is for the reason that in the requisition, respondent No. 2 has now added a proviso regarding age criteria in para 7 of the requisition. As per the new proviso, name of the candidate can be sponsored if he had registered his name with the concerned Employment Exchange before attaining the age of 45 years.

¶37

4. Considering the fact that respondent No. 3 has now sponsored the name of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 for the post of Pharmacists (Allopathy), as mentioned in para 5 of the reply filed by respondent No. 3, we dispose of this writ petition by directing respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner

¶38

¶39

for appointment to the post in question, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of production of copy of this order by passing a speaking order. The copy of order so passed be also supplied to the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for her surviving grievance(s), if any. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶40

( Mohammad Rafiq ) Chief Justice

¶41

11^th March, 2022 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge

Pratima Kumari v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratima Kumari v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Sarla Mehta Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Baby Thakur Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Gramin Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan Vs State of Hp through Pr.Secretary

Joginder Paul Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rajni Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp