Disposed

Kavi Raj Raghav v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Jun 2024CWP/4303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment as a Pharmacist citing prior Arts stream 10+2 qualification before rule amendments. The court directed the competent authority to decide his representation via a speaking order after an opportunity of hearing within two weeks, without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 3/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's case via a speaking order after hearing, within two weeks.

Kavi Raj Raghav Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 4303/2024 Decided on: 10.06.2024

¶3

Kavi Raj Raghav …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶6

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶7

Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶10

Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, learned Additional Advocate

¶11

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that:-

¶14

3(i) Petitioner passed his 10+2 examination in Arts stream

¶15

from Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in the year 1998.

¶16

He thereafter took admission in two years Diploma in Pharmacy

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

(1999-2002) from the Board of Examining Authority, Government of Karnataka; The petitioner completed the diploma course in the year 2002.

¶20

3(ii) The petitioner registered his name with Employment Exchange Mandi on 14.07.2003. He also registered his diploma with Himachal Pradesh State Pharmacy Council, Shimla on 14.07.2003 vide registration No.4319.

¶21

3(iii) On 11.09.2001, the respondent-State notified Himachal Pradesh Department of Health & Family Welfare Pharmacist, Class-III (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2001 after repealing the 1973 Rules.

¶22

3(iv) On 23.08.2022, the respondents directed the petitioner and similar situated incumbents to appear for counselling on 06.09.2022 for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) on bathwise recruitment basis. Name of the petitioner was sponsored for the post in question by the Special Employment Exchange (for Physically Handicapped) Shimla as the petitioner is having 50% locomotor disability.

¶23

The petitioner appeared for the counselling on 06.09.2022, however, his candidature for the post was not entertained by the Selection Committee on the ground that he was not in possession of requisite 10+2 Science certificate and had passed 10+2 in Arts stream.

¶24

¶25

3(v) Petitioner preferred a representation to respondent No.2 on 30.09.2022 to consider his candidature for appointment as pharmacist by giving him relaxation in Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R&P Rules in short). The petitioner stated therein that he had qualified 10+2 in Arts stream before amendment of the R&P Rules and at that time possession of 10+2 Science certificate was not an eligibility condition for the appointment to the post in question and further that he was in possession of diploma in Pharmacy.

¶26

3(vi) On 15.03.2023, the petitioner was informed by respondent No.1 that the Department of Personnel had expressed its inability to concur with the proposal of the Health Department for relaxing the R&P Rules in petitioner’s favour.

¶27

3(vii) Aggrieved against the rejection of his representation, the petitioner instituted CWP No.3386/2023, which was withdrawn on 31.05.2023 for availing some other remedy.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after withdrawal of the aforementioned writ petition, the petitioner preferred a representation to respondent No.3-Director Health Services, seeking relaxation in the essential educational qualification prescribed under the R&P Rules for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy). Nothing was conveyed to the petitioner about the fate of his representation. The petitioner, therefore, applied for documents

¶29

¶30

under the Right to Information Act. The documents so supplied have been appended at Annexure P-11.

¶31

On the basis of documents placed on record, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner’s case for granting him relaxation in the essential educational qualification prescribed in R&P Rules in view of his peculiar facts has not been decided as yet by respondent No.3, even though, the documents supplied to him under RTI (Annexure P-11) makes specific reference that petitioner’s representation is to be decided by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to him.

¶32

In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, respondent No.3 is directed to decide the case of the petitioner by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in a time bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

¶33

In view of above submissions but without examining

¶34

the merits of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No3/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid case of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

¶35

¶36

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶37

disposed of.

¶38

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶39

June 10, 2024(rohit)

Kavi Raj Raghav v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavi Raj Raghav v. State of Hp and Others

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

Kum Anju Dhiman Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Paras Ram and Others Vs Hrtc and Another

Roshan Lal and Anr. Vs NHAI and Ors.

Kaushalya Devi Vs Hpu and Others

Kunal Chatterji Vs State of Hp

Sarwan Ram Vs State of Hp and Others