Dismissed

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Dec 2024LPA/255/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal against the withdrawal of an appointment letter due to ineligibility arising from exceeding the age limit. The High Court held that the withdrawal was justified as the appellant was ineligible regardless of procedural lapses, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no merits found in the appellant's contention regarding natural justice. Parties bear their own costs.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

2024:HHC:15420

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶4

LPA No. 255 of 2023

¶5

Date of decision: 18.12.2024

¶6

Ajay Kumar …Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents Co ram

¶9

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

¶10

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶12

For the Appellant: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.

¶13

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Addl. A.G. and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. A.G. for the respondents.

¶14

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ (Oral)

¶15

The Department of Ayurveda called upon all Employment Exchanges to sponsor names of eligible candidates for 38 posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacists in the Department of Ayurveda.

¶16

Apart from this, a public notice was published in the newspaper, specifically mentioning therein that candidates having age between 18-45 shall be eligible to make application for the post in question, which was admittedly on contract basis. No doubt, the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the concerned employment

¶17

¶18

2024:HHC:15420

¶19

exchange, but since his name was not being considered by the Department, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6878 of 2022, but before the same could be decided on its own merits, Department vide office order dated 11.10.2022, offered him appointment against the post in question, as a result thereof earlier CWP No. 6878 of 2022 was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, after two months of issuance of appointment letter, the Department realized that at the time of issuance of appointment letter, petitioner was over age, as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 13.8.2019, wherein only the candidates between 18-45 years of age could be considered for appointment against post on batch wise basis as such, vide impugned order dated 22.11.2022, appointment letter dated 11.10.2022 came to be withdrawn.

¶20

It is not in dispute that on 11.10.2022, when the petitioner was offered appointment, he had crossed the age of 45 years and, thus, he was not eligible even to be considered much less appointed. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner was withdrawn, constraining him to approach the Writ Court.

¶21

Learned Writ Court after noticing that the petitioner was not eligible for the appointment and has been wrongly appointed, dismissed the petition.

¶22

¶23

2024:HHC:15420

¶24

It is vehemently argued by Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, that the appointment order could not have been withdrawn without complying with the basic principles of natural justice and fair play by issuing a notice. However, we find no merit in such contention given the fact that it was not in dispute that the petitioner had crossed the age bar of 45 years on the cut-off date and could not have been considered much less appointed.

¶25

Mere fact that there has been no misrepresentation or concealment of the facts at the behest of the writ petitioner, would not entitle him to retain the post, for which he is not even eligible.

¶26

Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the findings rendered by the learned Writ Court.

¶27

Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶28

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice

¶29

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶30

18.12.2024 (sanjeev)

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar 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

Anil Sood Vs State of Hp and Others

Hppcl and Another Vs Raj Kumar and Others

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp

Ram Gopal Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

Sonika Kumari Vs State of Hp and Another

Anita Devi and Another Vs State of Hp and Another