Dismissed

Shalini Rana v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2024CWPOA/4317/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a petitioner's original application seeking appointment as a Ward of Ex-Servicemen. Relying on instructions dated 15.9.2010, the Court held that mere registration with the Employment Exchange is insufficient; the petitioner failed to submit the mandatory affidavit proving her father had not been rehabilitated through other employment, thereby disqualifying her from the reserved

What did the court decide?

The original application seeking appointment and quashing of the circular was dismissed for failure to fulfill mandatory documentary requirements regarding rehabilitation.

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

¶1

1 2024:HHC:4417

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWPOA No. 4317 of 2020

¶4

Reserved on: 26.6.2024

Decided on: 3.7.2024

Shalini Rana

…Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

Coram

¶12

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner:

¶15

Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, Advocate.

¶16

For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶17

Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

¶18

Virender Singh, Judge

¶19

Petitioner Shalini Rana has invoked the

¶20

jurisdiction of the erstwhile H.P. Administrative

¶21

2 2024:HHC:4417

¶22

Tribunal, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by way of Original Application No.

¶23

2188 of 2018, seeking the following relief:

¶24

“In view of the submission made hereinabove, the present applicant prays for the following relief:

¶25

(a) That the respondent-department may kindly be directed to consider the present O.A. without Annexure “A” appended with Annexure A/16 in a sympathetic manner:

¶26

(b) That the respondent/department may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as a ward of Ex-Servicemen without Annexure “A” appended with the (Annexure-A/16) and give same benefit which is given to the respondent No. 4.

¶27

(c) That the respondent/department may kindly be directed to quash and set aside the impugned circular/letter No.: PER (AP)C-B(12)-1/97-Vol.VIII, dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure-A/16).”

¶28

2. After abolition of the Tribunal, the said

¶29

Original Application was transferred to this Court,

¶30

and has been registered as CWPOA No. 4317 of 2012.

¶31

The petitioner has sought the aforesaid relief

¶32

on the ground that the petitioner has qualified

¶33

Teacher Eligibility Test (TGT) Non-Medical 2015 from the H.P. Board of School Education Dharamshala and

¶34

also qualified Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET)

¶35

September, 2015 from Central Board of Secondary

¶36

Education, Delhi. The petitioner has also got her name

¶37

entered in the Employment Office, Dehra on 7.6.2003,

¶38

being a ward of Ex-Serviceman (WXSM) TET, TGT.

¶39

3 2024:HHC:4417

¶40

Elaborating her stand, the petitioner has pleaded that her father retired from Indian Army 16 Dogra Regiment. After retirement, her father obtained second job in the Education Department and was posted as TGT (Arts).

¶41

Asserting her claim to be appointed under the category of dependent of Ex-Servicemen, the petitioner has asserted that she was called for counseling for the post of TGT (Non-Medical), under Gen (WEXM) ward of Ex-Servicemen category, on contract basis, amongst TET qualifiers (Batch wise recruitment). The counseling for this purpose had been fixed on 11.4.2018, for which, she has appeared and given the requisite affidavit, regarding the fact that no other ward, i.e. son or daughter or wife of her father, has been provided employment, against the vacancies reserved for Ex-Serviceman, under the H.P. Govt./Corporation/Board/Autonomous Body of the respondents-State, as well as, Central/Union

¶42

4 2024:HHC:4417

¶43

Territory/Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body/Banks.

¶44

The petitioner has also annexed the unemployment certificate, issued by the Naib Tehsildar Paragpur (Kangra). According to the petitioner, the respondent, vide corrigendum No. PER (AP)-C-B (12)-1/97-Vol.

¶45

VIII, dated 15.9.2010, issued by the State Goverment,

¶46

has adversely affected the right of the petitioner to get the job. The said letter is also stated to be violative of Article-16 of the Constitution of India, as according to the petitioner, her name was registered with the Employment Exchange on 7.6.2023,under the ward

¶47

of Ex-Servicemen quota, as TET (TGT). As such, said notification does not apply to her case.

¶48

It is the further case of the petitioner that since, she, when appeared before the Selection Board, could not submit Annexure “A”, as such, she has been declared ineligible/disqualified.

¶49

5 2024:HHC:4417

¶50

The letter dated 15.9.2017 is stated to be void-

¶51

ab-initio.

¶52

To buttress her contention, the petitioner has pleaded that respondent No. 4 was also employed under ward of Ex-Servicemen quota, whose name is figured at serial No. 39. He is stated to be working in Govt. Middle School Satyas, under control of Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Bairaghara, Chamba. He joined on 12.3.2014, but now respondent department has decided that no dependent wards, who have also been rehabilitated with the Central and other State/Union Territory Government/Public Sector

¶53

Undertaking/Autonomous Bodies/Banks etc. will be considered for appointment, for the post of ExServiceman. According to the petitioner, not only this, the Department is also taking shelter of circular/letter No. 8.34/73-DP )Apptt.II), dated 24.9.1983.

¶54

Re-asserting her right on the basis of fact that

¶55

her name was registered with the Employment

¶56

6 2024:HHC:4417

¶57

Exchange, the petitioner has sought the relief, as claimed in the petition.

¶58

When, put to notice, the prayer so made in the petition, has been contested, by filing the reply.

¶59

In reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, a defence has been taken that father of the petitioner has joined Indian Army on 1.5.1956 and he superannuated on 30.4.1984. After his retirement, he obtained second job as TGT (Arts) in the respondentdepartment, under Ex-Servicemen quota. As such, he has exercised his right on the post reserved for ExServicemen. Thus, the benefit under the ExServicemen quota cannot be extended to the petitioner, as the same has been exercised by her father.

¶60

According to respondents No. 1 to 3, the candidature of the petitioner was considered, but, she could not furnish the requisite affidavit, to the effect that her father has not exercised his right for the

¶61

7 2024:HHC:4417

¶62

second job, under Ex-Servicemen quota. As such, her candidature has rightly been rejected.

¶63

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.

¶64

The petitioner has filed the rejoinder by asserting the fact that the benefit of right of reservation, under the Ex-Servicemen quota, could be extended to the petitioner, as per circular dated 24.9.1983 (Annexure A-16), as according to the instructions, the respondent-State has admitted that wards of Ex-Servicemen, who have not rehabilitated through employment, against reserved post with the HP Government/Corporation/Board/Autonomous Bodies of HP, can be considered on merit, for the appointment of post of Ex-Servicemen, in case, no suitable Ex-Servicemen is available.

¶65

She has further pleaded that employment has also been given to numerous similar situated persons, as wards of Ex-Servicemen, who are presently working

¶66

8 2024:HHC:4417

¶67

on different posts, but, contrary stand has been taken by the Department, in her case.

¶68

During pendency of the present case, before this Court, on 5.12.2022, this Court has passed the following order:

¶69

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a specific plea that respondent No.4 and one Satishy Kumar, presently posted as Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Garli, District Kangra, H.P. were similarly situated persons with the petitioner, but in their case the appointments were given to them without taking into consideration communication dated 15.09.2010, Annexure A-16 and in this manner, the petitioner has alleged to have been discriminated. Without commenting on the merits of the argument so raised, it will be necessary to ascertain the correct factual position. Let respondent No.2 clarify the factual position regarding the above mentioned two persons by filing a detailed affidavit providing all details in respect of appointments of said persons, their respective categories and especially the fact whether the persons under whom respondent No.4 and said Sh. Satish Kumar claimed themselves to be the wards of exservicemen had already been rehabilitated in terms of the communication dated 15.09.2010, Annexure A-16. Needful be done within two weeks.”

¶70

In compliance of the said order, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions, according to which, Surjit Kumar, was appointed as TGT (NM) under General Ward of Ex-

¶71

9 2024:HHC:4417

¶72

Servicemen category, vide office order dated 23.2.1999. He has joined the duties on 5.3.1999.

¶73

The petitioner has placed on record the copy of call letter for counseling, Annexure A-13, according to which, she was directed to furnish Annexures “A” and “B”, under column No. 8. Annexure “A”, annexed with the petition as a part of Annexure-16, is reproduced as under:

¶74

“ Annexure “A”

¶75

Form of certificate to be furnished by the son/daughter or wife of Ex-Servicemen to considered against the posts reserved for Ex-Servicemen.

¶76

It is certificate that Sh/Kumari/Smt_______ resident of village ________ P.O._______ Tehsil District____ (Himachal Pradesh) is the dependent son/daughter or wife of Shri __________Ex-Srvicemen No. __Rank who has not been rehabilitated through employment against the post reserved for Exservicemen with the H.P. Govt./Corporation/Board/Autonomous Body of H.P. as well as Central and other State/Union Territory Government or Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body/Banks etc. under the control of the said Central or other State/Union Territory Government.

¶77

10 2024:HHC:4417

¶78

Patwari/Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, President of Muncipal Committee or Notified Area Committee/Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation of the area.

Date:

Place:

Countersigned by

Tehsildar/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) of the area”

¶83

On 15.9.2010, the Principal Secretary

¶84

(Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has issued instructions regarding eligibility of the dependent sons/daughters or wives or ex-servicemen for the posts reserved for ex-servicemen and certificate/affidavit to be produced by them, for their consideration, against the posts reserved for exservicemen. Relevant portion of the said instructions, dated 15.9.2010 (Annxure A-16) is reproduced as under:

¶85

“I am directed to invite reference to this department/letter No. 8.34/73-DP (Apptt.II), dated 24.9.1983 on the subject cited above and to say that as per existing instructions, the dependent sons/daughters or wives of such ex-servicemen who have not been rehabilitated through employment against reserved post with the H.P.

¶86

11 2024:HHC:4417

¶87

Govt./Corporation/Board/Autonomous bodies of H.P.can be considered on merit for appointment on posts reserved for ex-servicemen, in case no suitable ex-servicemen is available but such facility is stillbeing availed by the dependents wards of such exservicemen who had already been rehabilitated with the Central/other State Governments and Board/Corporation/Autonomous bodies under them and Banks etc. After thorough consideration, it has now been decided that, henceforth, no dependent wards, i.e. sons/daughters or wives of such ex-servicemen who have also been rehabilitated with central and other State/Union Territory Government/Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous bodies/Banks etc. will be considered for appointment on posts reserved for exservicemen, in case no suitable ex-servicemen is available. Accordingly, format of certificate4/affidavit to be furnished by the sons/daughters or wives of exservicemen to be considered against the posts reserved for ex-servicemen has been revised as per Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively. These instructions shall be applicable with immediate effect.

¶88

Other terms and conditions as contained in the instructions referred to above will remain the same.” 21. Bare perusal of the above instructions clearly

¶89

demonstrate that the applicant was bound to file Annexure “A” and “B”, annexed with instructions, Annexure A-16, dated 15.9.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the

¶90

12 2024:HHC:4417

¶91

judicial conscience of this Court as to how the petitioner is entitled for the relief, as claimed in the petition, whereas, the person, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 4, as per affidavit, furnished by the Director (Elementary Education) to the Govt. of H.P., has submitted the essential documents Annexures “A” and “B”. The concerned Patwari/Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned has issued the requisite certificate, in favour of respondent No. 4, and after considering the said affidavit, respondent-State has appointed respondent No. 4.

¶92

Merely for the reason that her name has been registered in the Employment Exchange, under the category of ward of Ex-Servicemen, does not entitle the petitioner to get the relief, as claimed for.

¶93

At the cost of repetition, when the applicant has not submitted the requisite document (Annexure “A”), then, no relief can be granted to her.

¶94

13 2024:HHC:4417

¶95

Considering all these facts, there is no

¶96

substance in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶97

The pending application(s), if any, are also

¶98

disposed of accordingly.

¶99

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶100

3.7.2024 Kalpana

Shalini Rana v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini Rana v. State of Hp

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

Thakur Dass Vs State of Hp

Dilbag Singh Vs State of Hp

Ganga Ram Vs Hp State Cooprative Bank Ltd.

Union of India Vs Ms Bindeshwari Negi

Parvesh Kumar Vs Hrtc

Pinki Verma Vs State of Hp