Dismissed

Dharam Dass v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 May 2024CWPOA/6317/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a petition for promotion to the post of Junior Technician (Pump Operator). The court held that the petitioner lacked the mandatory matriculation qualification, disqualifying him from the appointment and subsequent training required for promotion.

What did the court decide?

Promotion to Junior Technician (Pump Operator) and direction for training dismissed; petitioner's name not forwarded due to lack of qualification.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWPOA No.6317 of 2020

¶4

Date of Decision: 01.05.2024

Dharam Dass

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

____________________________________________________ Coram_

¶11

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶13

________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General & Mr. J.S. Guleria & Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocates General.

¶14

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶15

Heard. The instant petition has been filed for grant of

¶16

the following substantive reliefs:-

¶17

“A. That the learned Tribunal may kindly pass the orders to the respondents to promote the applicant at the post of Junior Technician (Pump Operator) as per his seniority and longer tenure of 20 years of service.

¶18

B. That the learned Tribunal may kindly direct the respondents to promote the applicant on the post of Junior Technician (Pump-Operator) subject to completion of two months departmental training.

¶19

1 ? Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶20

¶21

C. That the learned Tribunal may kindly direct the respondents to frame seniority list for giving the departmental training, so that they can acquire the necessary qualification as per regular line of promotion.

¶22

D. That the learned Tribunal may kindly direct the respondents to not promote any of the junior inservice candidates just on the basis of two months training, by ignoring the longer service tenure and seniority of applicant.”

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualification for being appointed as a Pump Operator (Class-III, Non Gazetted) as he was only a middle pass as against the minimum educational qualification of being a matriculate. His name was rightly not forwarded for undergoing two months’ ITI training. In such circumstances, once the petitioner lacks educational qualification, he cannot lay a claim to be promoted to the post of Junior Technician (Pump Operator (Class-III, Non-Gazetted).

¶24

Therefore, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶25

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶26

(Sushil Kukreja) May 01, 2024 Judge (VH)

Dharam Dass v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Dass 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritam Chand Vs Hrtc

Shankar Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Pushpender Kumar Vs Hpssb

Devinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Cskhpkv Palampur Vs Vinod Kumar

Dr. Sunil Sharma Vs State of Hp