Dismissed

Hrtc and Another v. Raj Kumar and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Jun 2024RP/46/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench dismissed the review petition challenging a judgment that directed HRTC to evaluate a disabled petitioner for a Transport Manager/Assistant post based on merit. The court held that reservation exemptions for conductors did not apply to this post and no error of law existed in the original judgment.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Hrtc and Another Vs Raj Kumar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

( 2024:HHC:3720 )

( 2024:HHC:3720 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶5

Review Petition No. 46 of 2024 Date of Decision: June 17, 2024

¶6

HRTC and another …Petitioners

Versus

Raj Kumar & another

.....Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶12

For the Petitioner: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the Respondents: None.

¶13

Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral)

¶14

This petition has been filed seeking review of judgment dated 28.08.2023 passed in CWPOA No. 5274 of 2020 titled Raj Kumar vs. HRTC whereby HRTC Corporation has been directed to evaluate merit of Raj Kumar (petitioner) after awarding 1 mark for disability in terms of Notification dated 17.04.2017 and to offer him appointment if he is found in merit.

¶15

2 The Review Petition has been preferred mainly on two grounds that there is no reservation available for disabled persons to the post of Transport Multipurpose Assistant (in short TMPA), to which the petitioner has been claiming his appointment which is a feeder category for the post of conductor and vide letter dated 27.10.2010, Corporation has been exempted by the Government from providing reservation to disabled persons to various posts including conductor and thus being disabled person candidature of petitioner was liable to be rejected, Corporation and, therefore, it has been contended that petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of TMPA.

¶16

¶17

( 2024:HHC:3720 )

¶18

3 From the documents filed with reply to main petition particularly Annexure “B” of Annexure R-2 it is clearly apparent that reservation has not to be given to blind/deaf and extremed orthopeodically handicapped to certain categories of posts including conductor. It does not say that any type of disability shall be disqualification for appointment to the post of TMPA or conductor. It only provides that Corporation is exempted from providing reservation to disabled persons to various categories including conductor. But no such exemption is there with respect to TMPA.

¶19

4 It is also relevant to notice that there wll be no reservation to ‘extremed orthopeodically handicapped’. It does not mean that handicapped can not be posted as TMPA or conductor, but it will depend on facts on case to case basis. In present case, it was never a plea that for nature of disability petitioner is not suitable for job.

¶20

5 In present case, petitioner is disabled person with 45% permanent disability being Locomotor Impaired and at the same time, it is also noticeable that he is in possession of Indian Conductor Licence issued by duly competent Registering and Licensing Authority, Kangra and therefore, it cannot be construed that on the basis of his disability, he is not in a position to perform the duty of TMPA or conductor.

¶21

6 It is also apt to record that petitioner is not seeking appointment on the basis of reservation to the disabled persons but on the basis of merit obtained in the written test as well as evaluation as per Notification dated 17.4.2017 which provides one mark for differently abled persons appearing in the interview with more than 40% impairment/disability/infirmity and grant of such marks has nothing to do with the fact that as to whether reservation is provided to disabled persons to the post in question or not.

¶22

7 It has been also contended on behalf of petitioner that at the time of passing of judgment all posts of TMPA had been filled up by

¶23

¶24

( 2024:HHC:3720 )

¶25

Corporation and no post is available for the petitioner and therefore, also

¶26

review of judgment has been sought. As held by the Supreme Court in Rameshwar and others vs. Jot Ram and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 49 , it is basic to our processual jurisdiction that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceedings. Therefore, such plea can never be a valid ground for reviewing the judgment.

¶27

8 As the impugned judgment has been passed on merits by considering the material on record and therefore, in case no post is available as on date, Corporation should create a supernumerary post for implementation of judgment passed by Court.

¶28

9 In view of above and also after going through judgment, which has been passed on the basis of material placed before us, we find no error of law apparent on the face of record and accordingly, petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶29

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

¶30

June 17, 2024 (Bipin Chander Negi) (ms) Judge

Hrtc and Another v. Raj Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hrtc and Another v. Raj Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Lal Vs State of Hp

Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry Vs Mansa Ram Sharma and Others

Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry Vs Anant Ram and Others

Bansi Lal Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs M/S Adani Power Limited

Uggam Ram Vs State of Hp