This Letters Patent Appeal challenged an order directing the State Electricity Board to offer appointments to petitioners. The High Court held that since the impugned order was passed based on the appellant-Board's submissions, no ground for interference existed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA, & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.94 OF 2022 ALONGWITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.114 OF 2022
Between:-
….APPELLANTS
(BY MR. TARA SINGH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
ANIL KUMAR, SON OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDNI, POST OFFICE BHAROG BANERI, TEHSIL KAMROO, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
….RESPONDENT
2
(BY MR. PRAVEEN CHANDEL, ADVOCATE)
LPA NO.114 OF 2022
1. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VIDYUT BHAWAN, SHIMLA-171004, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL).
2. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED NAHAN, THROUGH SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
….APPELLANTS
(BY MR. TARA SINGH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE) AND
PREM DUTT, SON OF SH. HUKMI RAM, RESIDENT OF BORAR (177), KOTIBHUNCH, SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
….RESPONDENT
(BY MR. PRAVEEN CHANDEL, ADVOCATE)
__________________________________________________
3
These Letters Patent Appeals coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
Appellants have filed these Letters Patent Appeals, challenging the order dated 29.11.2021, passed by the learned
Single Judge.
“5. Today, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board has informed the Court that he has instructions to state that in case the petitioners are offered appointment against the post of T/Mate in their respective categories, the private respondents can also be adjusted as there are posts available in the respective categories. He further states that this Court may observe that this concession is being given in the peculiar facts of this case and the same shall not be treated as a precedent.
4
6. Taking into consideration the fair stand, which has been taken by learned Counsel for the respondent-Board, these writ petitions are allowed/disposed of with the direction that the petitioners be offered appointment against the post of Junior T/Mate in their respective categories as from the date when persons similarly situated as them were offered appointment. Seniority be conferred upon them in terms of their merit in their respective categories. As from that date the benefits recurring to them shall be deemed to be notional uptill the date the petitioners are offered appointment which should not be later than 15 days from today. The direction issued by this Court of granting appointment to the petitioners shall not be construed as if a direction has been passed by this Court to set aside the appointment of the private respondent. In terms of the statement, which has been made on behalf of the respondentBoard by learned Counsel, said respondents be adjusted in their respective categories and concession given by the Board in this particular
5
case is ordered not to be treated as a precedent.
The petitions stand disposed of in
above terms, as also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”
the impugned order has been passed in terms of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Board.
Board. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
of 2021, reads as under:-
6
“By way of present petition, the petitioner has made a very innocuous prayer for declaration of result of interview held on 21.12.2020 for the post of Junior T Mate/Junior Helper (Sub-station) and issue him appointment letter, if eligible/selected. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the post of Junior T Mate and Junior Helper (Substation) on contract basis held on 21.12.2020, and in the event of petitioner being selected, issue him offer of appointment to the post in question, forthwith.”
are of the opinion that so far as the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 is concerned, the same has been passed by learned Single Judge in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Board. Hence, the order dated 25.03.2021 fails to advance the case of the appellantBoard. Since the impugned order dated 29.11.2021, passed by learned Single Judge in CWPs No.1405 and 1406 of 2021,
7
has been passed in terms of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Board, no ground for interference is made out.
August 02, 2022 (Yashwant)
( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order passing to the appellants can be challenged when it was passed based on their submissions offered in court.
Whether a coordinate bench's order in CWP No.1499 of 2021 advances the case of the appellant-Board in the present appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mandeep Singh versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board LimitedDistinguished¶5
Mandeep Singh versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others (CWP No.1499 of 2021)
The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited
Anil Kumar
Prem Dutt
Sabina
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
