Mr. R.K. Sharma v. Admit

Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2. Admit. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 773 of 2009

16.12.2009 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate for respondent No.1. List on 17th December, 2009. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 777 of 2009

16.12.2009 Present: Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General for the respondents. Ms. Suman Thakur prays for and is permitted a week’s time to file the rejoinder. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 793 of 2009

16.12.2009 Present: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.5. Admit. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 873 of 2009

16.12.2009 petitioner. Present: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashista, Advocate for the Mr. M.A. Khan, Central Government Counsel for the respondents. In view of Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, the Registry is directed to transfer the matter to the Armed Forces Tribunal at Chandigarh. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 2710 of 2009.

16.12.2009 Present: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondent No.3. Admit. CMP No. 5315 of 2009. Ad-interim order dated 17th August, 2009 is made absolute. The application is disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 2731 of 2009.

16.12.2009 Present: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondent No.3. Admit. CMP No. 5371 of 2009. Ad-interim order dated 17th August, 2009 is made absolute. The application is disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 3388 of 2009.

16.12.2009 Present: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. Mr. Sharma prays for and is permitted to file the reply within four weeks. List thereafter. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 3490 of 2009.

16.12.2009 Present: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. The material facts necessary for adjudication of this Petition are that interview for the post of Anganwari Centre, Kharla Jyor Khungaara (Amarpur) was held on 3rd August, 2007. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari worker. Respondent No.3 assailed her appointment. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur on 15th January, 2009. Respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The same was decided by the Divisional Commissioner on 7th September, 2009 and the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate was set aside. It was primarily contended by respondent No.3 before the learned Divisional Commissioner that the income of the petitioner exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000/-. It was contended By the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner that her family income was Rs.11,700/-. The Tehsildar, Ghumarwin vide letter dated 27th September, 2008 has informed that income of petitioner’s family was Rs.3300/- from land and Rs.8400/- from the shop. However, to decide the issue finally, final report was sought from the office of Collector, Sub Division, Ghumarwin. He has reported that the income of the petitioner was Rs.15050/- per annum and that of respondent No.3 was Rs.14,250/-. Consequently, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were not found eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwari worker. It is in these circumstances that Divisional Commissioner directed the Authorities to make fresh selection. We are of the considered view that in view that in view of the report of the Collector, Sub Division, Ghumarwin, the petitioner was not eligible as her family income has been assessed at Rs.15050/-per annum. The maximum income prescribed of the family is Rs.12,000/- per annum. Accordingly, there is no jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity in the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. Consequently, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 4260 of 2009.

16.12.2009 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. Mr. Sharma prays for and is permitted to file the reply within three weeks. List thereafter. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWPIL No. 15 of 2009.

16.12.2009 Present: Court on its own motion. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. After going through the contents of the reply filed by the State- respondent, we are of the considered view that the Secretary, MPP & Power to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board through its Secretary and Jaypee Industries, Himachal Cement Plant at Baga, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. through its Director Shri K.P. Sharma are required to be impleaded as party respondents. Consequently, the Secretary, MPP & Power Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board through its Secretary and Jaypee Industries, Himachal Cement Plant at Baga, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. through its Director Shri K.P. Sharma be arrayed as party respondents No. 3 to 5. Necessary corrections be carried out in the memo of parties by the Registry. Issue notice to the newly added respondents No. 3 to 5 returnable within four weeks. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWPIL No. 3 of 2009

16.12.2009 Present: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, Amicus Curiae. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Heard in part. List for further hearing on 17th December, 2009. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 3286 of 2009

16.12.2009 Mr. Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, with Mr. Virender Thakur and Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India for the respondents. Heard further. List for further hearing on 18th December,

2009. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. COPC No. 74 of 2009

16.12.2009 Present: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondent No. 2. This Court has disposed of CWP No. 55 of 2005 on October 29,

2007. The judgment reads thus:- “Learned counsel for the parties agreed for the disposal of the Writ Petition finally today itself by passing the following agreed order. The Writ Petition is disposed of finally. Respondents No. 4 and 5 are directed to issue a fresh, updated tentative seniority list of Supervisors (as on 31st March, 1991) in the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, latest by 30th November, 2007. It is made clear that time for this shall not be extended. We are saying so because this case is almost two decades old and cannot therefore brook any further delay. In the fresh, updated tentative seniority list thus to be issued time of four weeks shall be given to all concerned to file objections. The final seniority list shall be drawn up and prepared by respondents No.4 and 5 latest by 31st March, 2008. Time for this shall also not be extended for the aforesaid reason. No application for extension of time with respect to compliance of any of the aforesaid two actions shall be entertained by the Court. Because of the passing of the aforesaid Court order, the impugned judgment dated 10th December, 2004 passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.(M) No. 409 of 1992 is set aside with all the consequences. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim direction shall stand vacated and all the pending applications shall stand disposed of .” A bare perusal of the judgment reveals that it was incumbent upon the respondent- State to issue tentative seniority list of Supervisors (as on 31st March, 1991) latest by 30th November, 2007 and after hearing the objections to issue the final seniority list by 31st March, 2008. In sequel to judgment rendered by this Court, a tentative seniority list was issued on 27th November, 2007. Objections were also called for. Thereafter the final seniority list of Supervisors was notified on 10th March, 2008. However, on the basis of letter dated 28th March, 2008, the final seniority list issued on 10th March, 2008 was withdrawn and new final seniority list was published on 29th March, 2008. The State has implemented the judgment in letter and spirit as far as issuance of tentative seniority list dated 27th November, 2007 and final seniority list dated 10th March, 2008 are concerned. However, the respondents have issued fresh seniority list on 29th March, 2008 purportedly on the basis of representations made by the persons mentioned in the letter dated 29th March, 2008. This course was not open to the respondents. In case the final seniority list was to be modified/ withdrawn, it was necessary for the respondents to seek permission of this Court. The State has not taken recourse to this. The tentative seniority list dated 27th November, 2007 and the final seniority list dated 10th March, 2008 have been issued by the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment. He has withdrawn the same merely on the basis of letter dated 28th March, 2008 issued by the State Government. In other words, he has not applied his own mind independently while withdrawing the final seniority list circulated vide letter dated 10th March, 2008. The persons whose names have been reflected in the final seniority list have acquired a legal right. The same has been taken away without hearing them when final seniority list was issued on 29th March, 2008. Confronted with the situation, Mr. R.K. Sharma in usual fairness submitted that the State Government may be permitted to withdraw the final seniority list dated 29th march, 2008. Consequently, in order to do complete justice, we permit the State government to withdraw the final seniority list circulated on 29th March, 2008. However, we make it clear by way of abundant caution that it shall be open to the State Government to re-draw the seniority list afresh after hearing the representations of all the interested parties in accordance with law. In view of the fair stand adopted by Mr. R.K. Sharma, notice is discharged. The proceedings are dropped. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief Justice. December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. CWP No. 4534 of 2009

16.12.2009 Present: Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondent No.2. The present Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the State- respondent to stop all the unauthorized Institutions running in the State of Himachal Pradesh in the form of off campus/ study Centres and Centres operating through franchises. The present Petition lacks material facts. The petitioner has not given details of Institutions which, according to him, are unauthorized. It was necessary for the petitioner to give details of each Institution which, according to him, was being run without the authority of the law. The averments contained in the Writ Petition are vague, cryptic and sketchy. Consequently, this Court cannot issue any direction to the State- respondent without basic facts being on the record. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. Justice. ( R.B. Misra ), Acting Chief December 16, 2009. (rks) ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge.