A petition challenging rejection for Assistant Superintendent post due to missing training certificate was dismissed. The court held the petitioner was estopped from claiming denial of right as he applied knowing the ORA terms and remained silent about training issues until late.
Petition dismissed on merit due to estoppel.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No.4628 of 2020.
Date of decision: 04.04.2024.
Lucky Ram …..Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others …..Respondents. Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with I.N. Mehta, Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. J.S. Guleria and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
“i) That the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant against the post of
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
2
Assistant Superintendent, Jail against the OBC category.
ii) That the appointment of the respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
3
petitioner for training, he would have been selected and because of gross negligence of respondent No.1, he has been deprived of his right to be appointed as Assistant Superintendent (Jail). Hence, this petition.
4
have gone through the material placed on record.
5
Moreover, the petitioner for all the reasons stated above is otherwise estopped from filing the instant petition.
any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge
(Sushil Kukreja) Judge April 04,2024. ( krt )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is estopped from challenging his rejection due to lack of required certificates when eligibility criteria were clear at the time of application.
Whether the petitioner's delay in raising the qualification grievance warrants dismissal of the challenge to his appointment rejection.
Lucky Ram
State of Himachal Pradesh
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Sushil Kukreja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
