Anil Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Others

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by non-sponsoring of his name for Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course by the respondents on

the ground that he has crossed the age of 50 years, whereas, according to him, persons similarly situated to him, were sponsored for undergoing said

Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course, has come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department that by exercising power to relax under Rule 65 of

CCS (Leave) Rules 1972, the petitioner shall be granted study leave for undergoing Veterinary Pharmacist training keeping in view the hardship to the

petitioner and peculiar conditions narrated in the wrot petition so just and equitable relief may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondent department that the Annexure P-7 may kindly be ignored in the case of Class-

IV employees like petitioner of the respondent-department for undergoing Veterinary Pharmacist Training as departmental sponsored candidates.

(iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department to promote the petitioner as Veterinary Pharmacist as

per his seniority after completion of petitioner training as departmental sponsored candidates to Veterinary Pharmacist course for session 2020-22.â€​

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Animal Husbandry Attendant on

10.03.2000. His services were regularized as such in the year 2008. After his regularization, on 23.09.2009, he was placed at Serial No. 1158 in the

seniority list of regular Class-IV employees. He is 10+2 pass. The case of the petitioner is that in the respondent-Department, a Class-IV employee,

who has done matriculation with Science followed by 10+2 or its equivalent, is sponsored for two years Veterinary Pharmacist Training

Course/Diploma, provided he has put in 5 years service as such. This confers eligibility upon such a candidate for being promoted to the post of

Veterinary Pharmacist.

The stand of the State is that there is no dispute that Class-IV employee with requisite educational qualification, who has put in five years of service

as such, is eligible to be sponsored for the training in issue, but as per the Rules in vogue, regulating the Sponsorship and Promotion to the post of

Veterinary Pharmacist, a person can be sponsored for the training in issue, provided he has not yet attained the age of 50 years, whereas petitioner is

overage. It is on this ground as per the State that the name of the petitioner was not sponsored for training, which as per the State is in sync with the

Rules and, thus, not arbitrary.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as the instructions, which have been placed on record by

the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.

5411 of 2020, titled Dhani Ram versus State of H.P. & Another, and stated that the case of the petitioner is covered by this judgment.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the names of Lekh Raj and Ram Lal, who had completed the age of 50 years and were not

eligible, have been inadvertently sent for the said training course vide letter dated 22.11.2019, Annexure P-8. It is further submitted that since they

both have been granted study leave inadvertently, therefore, the respondent-department is taking decision regarding conversion of the study leave into

the leave of the kind due.

As it is not in dispute that earlier vide letter dated 22.11.2019, the respondent-department has sponsored the names of Class-IV employees, namely,

Sh. Lekh Raj and Sh. Ram Lal for undergoing Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course, who had completed 50 years of age, then, in my considered

view, the petitioner cannot be discriminated against. This is for the reason that it is difficult to accept the contention of the State that said persons,

named hereinabove, were sponsored due to over sight.

That being the case, as this Court is of the view that the Department cannot be permitted to follow a pick and choose policy, this petition, in the

peculiar facts of the case, is disposed of with the direction that the name of the petitioner be also sponsored for undergoing Veterinary Pharmacist

Training Course forthwith, but with the observation that in future, the condition of not sponsoring Class-IV employees for undergoing training of said

course, who are above 50 years of age, shall be adhered to by the department strictly in letter and spirit. Pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.