Dismissed

State of Hp v. Naresh Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Dec 2024CWP/1607/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's petition challenging a Tribunal order directing the release of grant-in-aid to a pao. The Court held that the State's failure to attend to notification guidelines and absent its nominee from the interview process estopped it from questioning the appointment's validity, leading to confirmation of the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed Tribunal's order directing release of grant-in-aid and dismissed the petition.

State of Hp Vs Naresh Devi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

( 2024:HHC:15764-DB )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶4

CWP No. 1607 of 2017

¶5

Date of decision: 21.12.2024

¶6

State of H.P. & Ors. ...Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Naresh Devi & Anr. ...Respondents

¶9

Co ram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice.

¶10

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Addl. A.G. and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan Dy. A.Gs. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

¶12

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ (Oral)

¶13

State is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 01.06.2016 in T. A. No. 5926 of 2015, whereby it allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein and directed the appellants herein to release grant-inaid w.e.f. 22.09.2009.

¶14

Facts are not in dispute.

¶15

Respondent was appointed as a Peon in 95% grant-in-aid Public High School, Takarla, District Una, H.P. It

¶16

¶17

( 2024:HHC:15764-DB )

¶18

was amongst 144 recognized and affiliated schools, which were entitled to grant-in-aid equivalent to 95% of the salary and allowances of the staff. The management of the school applied to the Director, Elementary Education for grant-in-aid for staff and sundry expenses. The request of the management was not acceded to.

¶19

The appellants issued advertisement for filling up the post in the newspaper dated 05.08.2007, pursuant to which respondent No. 1 alongwith 19 other candidates appeared and the respondent came to be selected after holding the interview.

¶20

The only claim put-forth by the appellants before the learned Tribunal for not acceding to the claim of the respondent was that the Public High School had not followed the procedure in the case of the appointment of the respondent, inasmuch as the Director had not been associated in the selection.

¶21

Record reveals that as per the guidelines framed by the appellants themselves, notice at least in two leading newspapers through public notice and thereafter interview was to be fixed preferably between 27.08.2007 to 31.08.2007, as it would be convenient to provide Director’s nominee for conducting the interview.

¶22

¶23

( 2024:HHC:15764-DB )

¶24

Record further reveals that the management concerned was to complete the necessary process of interview by 27.08.2007. Accordingly, the advertisement was published pursuant to which 20 candidates applied for the post. The management of the school vide its letter dated 14.08.2007 and 12.09.2007, requested the Director of Higher Education for fixing the date of interview, but the said Director did not respond to such communication and consequently the interviews were conducted by the Management Committee of the school and this is how the respondent came to be selected.

¶25

In the given facts and circumstances, no fault can be found with the appointment of the respondent, as it was not open for her to have ensured the presence of the nominee of the Director in the interview. It was the appellants themselves, who were negligent in not sending the nominee and, therefore, are estopped from questioning the appointment of the respondent.

¶26

In such circumstances, obviously, no fault can be found with the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal whereby it directed the appellants to release grant-in-aid to the respondent w.e.f. 22.09.2009.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the

¶28

¶29

( 2024:HHC:15764-DB )

¶30

judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.

¶31

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice

¶32

(Satyen Vaidya) 21.12.2024 Judge (sanjeev)

State of Hp v. Naresh Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Naresh 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

Ankit Mamgain Vs Controller of Examination, Manav Bharti University

Deepak Mittal Vs Controller of Examination, Manav Bharti University

Babita Chahal Vs State of Hp and Others

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ms Hp State Environment Protection and Pollution Controal Board

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Hp State Enviornment Protection and Pollution Control Board

M/S Rt Pharma Vs Union of India and Others