Hem Raj vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(a), (b) and (c):

(a) The Respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to issue the regular appointment order to the Petitioner on the basis of Resolution contained in Annexure P1;

(b) The Respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to accept the joining report of the Petitioner and to permit him to undergo the requisite training in the office of Respondent No. 3;

(c) The Respondents be directed not to quash/cancel the selction and appoint of the Petitioner and not to re-call fresh applications and interview for the selection and appointment of Asstt. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Shiva;

In the reply on behalf of Respondent No. 2,the following stand has been taken vide para 3(iv):

In reply to this para of the petition, it is submitted that though applications from desirous candidates for the post of Assistant Secretary, Gram Panchayat were called for by the replying Respondent in his capacity as the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Shiva, but no Selection Committee was ever constituted by the replying Respondent nor the Petitioner''s application was received upto the due date in the Panchayat, i.e. 10-11-1999. The applications of five candidates received by the replying Respondent, i.e.S/Sh. Ram Lal, Harbans Lal, hem Chand, Smt. Harji Devi and Sh. Todar, have been sent by the replying Respondent vide his letter, dated 11-11-1999 to the Block Development Officer, Sadar Block. Neither any Selection Committee was formed ro constituted for interviewing the candidates, nor any date for interview was fixed and the alleged Resolution No. 4 dated 27-11-1999 was not passed under the Presidentship or Chairmanship of the replying Respondent, nor he was aware of the said Resolution. It is further submitted that Resolution No. 3 of the same date was also not passed in presence of the replying Respondent. It was all manipulation of the interested members of the Panchayat, who in connivance with the Petitioner have prepared false records of alleged Resolutions. As such the Petitioner has no right to claim any benefit of the alleged Resolution, as his selection and appointment was wholly wrong, illegal and void. Since there was no valid selection of the Petitioner, hence the present petition is not legally competent. Rest of the contents of this para are also wrong, incorrect and hence denied.

In the reply on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 3, the following averments have been set up vide para 5 of the preliminary submissions/objections:

That as per provision laid down u/s 148 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and further as provision laid down under rule-143 of H.P. Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 (copy attached annexure R-I with the reply) any aggrieved person can approach the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned or Director, Panchayati Raj by filing appeal/petition. But no such appeal before filing this application has ever been filed by the applicant, required u/s 20 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. It is therefore, prayed that this application may kindly either be dismissed or treated as representation and referred for decision to the Director, Panchayati Raj, Department or Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned.

In view of the above replies, In case the Petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to him to approach the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Mandi, within one month along with copy of this judgment, who will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice after giving personal hearing to the Petitioner and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within next three months.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.