Disposed

Ritik Roshan v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Dec 2022CWP/4899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged certain notifications and sought award of marks and post allocation under the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, arguing that a newly added Rule-19 prevented availing the remedy via administrative appeal. The court permitted the appeal to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to approach Additional District Maginate, Shimla by way of appeal within 15 days to be disposed of on merits without rejection on ground of delay.

Ritik Roshan 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

CWP No.4899 of 2022 Decided on:12.12.2022

¶4

Ritik Roshan ..……Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ..…Respondents

¶7

__________________________________________________ Coram:

¶8

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the petitioner : Mr. Ravi Tegta & Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocates.

¶11

For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶12

___________________________________________________

¶13

Sabina, Judge (Oral).

¶14

Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):-

¶15

“(I) That impugned Notification dated 07.04.2022 may be set aside to limited extent as detailed herein-above.

¶16

(II) That clarification dated 24.05.2022, may be set aside to the limited extent as detailed herein-above.

¶17

(III) That the case of the petitioner may be considered and due marks (08) in lieu of the land donated, may be awarded to the

¶18

¶19

petitioner and as per merit, post should be allocated.

¶20

(IV) That the appointment of the selected candidate may kindly be set aside.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now vide Addendum dated 25^th August, 2022, Rule-19 has been added to the Policy and as per the said rule, appeal can be filed before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the District within 15 days of the selection/appointment. In the present case, the result was declared in the month of June/July, 2022. Hence, the petitioner would not be able to avail the benefit of newly added Rule-19. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner will approach the Additional District Magistrate, Shimla, by way of an appeal within 15 days from today and the same should not be rejected by the competent authority on the ground that it is time barred as the Rule 19 has been incorporated on 25^th August, 2022.

¶22

Rule-19, provided vide Addendum dated 25^th August, 2022, reads as under:-

¶23

“ ADDENDUM

¶24

In partial modification of this Department's Notification No. EDN-C-B(1)2/2019 dated 16^th July,

¶25

¶26

2020 (as updated upto 11^th March, 2022), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to add "Rule19 Appellate Authority" in the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020 as under:

¶27

19. Appellate Authority :

¶28

The appeal in respect of complaints relating to PTMTW selection/appointment etc. should be made to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district within 15 days of the selection/appointment. The appeal will be considered by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district and disposed off within 30 days from its receipt with suitable directions. If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, then he/she may file an appeal with the Director of Higher/Elementary Education, as the case may be, within 15 days from the decision of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The appellate authority may dispose off the appeal within 60 days after hearing the appellant.

¶29

By Order

¶30

Devesh Kumar, IAS Pr. Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.”

¶31

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned

¶32

counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach

¶33

¶34

Additional District Magistrate, Shimla, by way of an appeal within 15 days from today and the said authority will dispose of the appeal in terms of Rule 19, provided vide Addendum dated 25^th August, 2022.

¶35

It is clarified that the appeal filed by the petitioner would not be rejected on the ground of delay, but would be disposed of on merits.

¶36

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

¶37

also stand disposed of.

¶38

( Sabina ) Judge

¶39

( Sushil Kukreja ) December 12, 2022 Judge (Yashwant)

Ritik Roshan v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritik Roshan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Krishan Vs State of Hp

Kehar Singh Vs State of Hp

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

M/S Linkwell Tele Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Nikita Choudhary Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Kasam Khan Vs State of Hp and Ors.