Dhani Ram vs State Of H.P. And Another

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside any administrative instructions/decisions which debars the

candidates like the petitioner to be send for Veterinary Pharmacist training as department sponsored candidates after attaining the age of 50 years

such instructions or administrative decisions shall be declared ultra virus to the R & P Rules of Veterinary Pharmacist post i.e. Annexure PÂ4 issued

vide notification dated 21.12.2018.

(ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondent department that the Rule 11 of Annexure PÂ4 shall not be given such a

meaning that the sponsored departmental ClassÂIV candidates be considered for promotion to the post of Veterinary Pharmacist after completion of

5 years service from the date of passing of course. Such interpretation to Rule 11 of Annexure PÂ4 may kindly be declared as arbitrary, unreasonable

thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondentÂdepartment 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 2020Â‐

22.â€​

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:

As per the petitioner, he was appointed as Animal Husbandry Attendant on 21.11.2000. His services were regularized as such in the year 2009. Post

his regularization, on 17.11.2009, he was placed at Serial No. 1269 in the seniority list of regular ClassÂIV employees. He is +2 pass. The case of the

petitioner is that in the respondentÂDepartment, a ClassÂIV employee, who has done matriculation with Science followed by +2 or its equivalent, is

sponsored for 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 grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been sponsored for Veterinary

Pharmacist Training Course on the ground that he has crossed the age of 50 years, whereas, according to him, persons who were similarly situated as

the petitioner and were above 50 years of age, were sponsored for undergoing said Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. It is in these

circumstances that this petition has been filed praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove.

The stand of the State is that there is no dispute that ClassÂIV 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.

During the course of arguments, when this case was listed on 16.12.2020, the following order was passed:

“Learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions dated 15.12.2020 and on the basis of same, he informs the Court that the

petitioner was not sponsored for the training in issue as he has crossed the age of 50 years and in terms of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules,

1972, as they stand amended by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time, an employee, who has crossed the age of 50 years as on the

date of submission of application for study leave, cannot be sponsored for study leave. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Notification

dated 28th June, 2016, appended with the instructions, which are ordered to be taken on record.

Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this case be taken up next week, because as per his instructions, earlier,

candidates who were above the age of 50 years and were similarly situated as the petitioner, were sponsored for the training by the Department.

As prayed for, list on 30.12.2020. Reply, as prayed for, to the petition may also be filed by the respondents.â€​

This was followed by the following order being passed by this Court on 02.01.2021:

“In response to the stand of the State reflected in the order dated 16.12.2020, petitioner has filed an application CMP No. 14414 of 2020, placing

on record therewith a copy of order dated 22.11.2019, whereby employees of age of above 50 years were sponsored by the Department for

Veterinary Pharmacist Course.

Learned Additional Advocate General seeks time to have instructions in response to the claim set up in the petition in the light of documents placed on

record along with aforesaid application.

On request of learned Additional Advocate General, as well as counsel for the petitioner, adjourned for 6th January, 2021, for listing before

appropriate Bench, enabling the Additional Advocate General, to have complete instructions in the matter.â€​

Thereafter, on 06.01.2021, the Court passed the following order:

“Learned Additional Advocate General has placed the instructions so imparted to him by the Director, Animal Husbandry, H.P. on record, perusal

of which demonstrate that there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that persons aged above 50 years have been sponsored for Veterinary

Pharmacist Training Course, though stand of the Department is that such employees were sent for the training due to an oversight. It is hard for the

Court to digest this contention which is being raised on behalf of the Department. Prima facie, it appears that the Department is adopting a pick and

choose policy.

Faced with this situation, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the case be taken up day after tomorrow, to enable him to have further

instructions in this regard. As prayed for, list on 8th January, 2021.â€​

Today, a prayer has been made for adjudication of the case on merit.

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.

As it is not in dispute that earlier vide letter dated 22.11.2019, the respondentÂDepartment has sponsored the names of ClassÂIV 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 ClassÂIV 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. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.