Partly allowed

Vishal v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Dec 2024LPA/455/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram disposed of a leave petition condoning filing delay. The High Court set aside the subordinate court order dismissing a writ petition against the appellant as finding were contradicted by record and procedure defective due to lack of hearing to respondents 3-5. Matter remitted afresh.

What did the court decide?

Affidavits received; impugned order set aside; matter to be decided afresh after affording opportunity to respondents No. 3 to 5.

Vishal Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

LPA No.455 of 2024 Decided on: 11.12.2024

¶3

Vishal .......appellant Versus

¶4

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the appellant :	Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents :	Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional
	Advocate Generals and Ms.
	Priyanka Chauhan, Mr. Arsh
	Rattan, Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No.1 & 2/State.
	Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
	Mr. Ajay K. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
	Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶9

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶10

CMP(M) No.383 of 2024

¶11

By medium of this application, the applicant has sought condonation of 190 days delay that has crept up in filing of the Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

¶13

appeal. A perusal of the application discloses sufficient cause which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Appeal be registered.

¶14

LPA No.455 of 2024

¶15

It appears that the learned Writ Court even without issuing notice much less affording an opportunity of hearing to respondents No.3 to 5, decided the writ petition against the petitioner by categorically observing in Para-3 of the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 that the name of the petitioner was never sent by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, whereas, it is the categorical case of the petitioner that his name was sent, as such, findings are contrary to the record. This necessitated the passing of the following order by this Court on 13.11.2024:

¶16

“Record reveals that the petition was dismissed only on the basis of the instructions which had been placed by respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. Secretary (Urban Development) and Director (Urban Development), whereas the stand of respondents No. 3 and 4 was not considered necessary for dismissing the petition.

¶17

In the given facts and circumstances, we direct respondents No. 3 and 4 to file their respective affidavits regarding the factual position of the case. Let needful be done on or before the next date of hearing.

¶18

List for consideration on 27.11.2024.

¶19

Registry is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, as counsel for respondent No. 5 in the cause list henceforth.”

¶20

In compliance to the aforesaid order, respondent No.3 has filed its affidavit, wherein, it has been specifically averred in Para-3 that it was vide letter dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure R-2) that the respondent-Corporation had forwarded the name of the present petitioner to respondent No.2.

¶21

Since the petition has been dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner’s name was neither in the list of candidates received by respondent No.2 nor his name was approved for appointment by respondent No.2, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court is not sustainable and is accordingly set-aside.

¶22

Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the learned Writ Court to decide the same afresh after affording an opportunity of filing reply to respondents No.3 to 5.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶24

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Acting Chief Justice

¶25

December 11, 2024 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (Yashwant) Judge

Vishal v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

State of Hp and Another Vs Pritam Singh and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Sanjay Kumar

Court on its own motion Vs State of Hp and others

Vikas Saklani Vs Prabodh Saxena and Another

State of Hp and Others Vs Balbir Singh

Hppsc Vs Vikas Saklani and Anr.