Parkash Chand and Others vs State of H.P. and Another

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

Petitioners were selected for undergoing training of Patwaris, for the purpose of being registered as Patwari candidates. They were selected in the year 2005 and underwent training during 2006-2007. They were declared successful. In the year 2009, Rules regarding recruitment of Patwaris were repealed by a new set of Rules. New set of Rules provided that seniority for the purpose of trained Patwaris appointment shall be in accordance with the merit secured in the examination conducted at the end of training. In the earlier Rules, the provision was that appointment was to be made on the basis of merit secured in the test held for selecting the candidates for training. Some other changes were also made in the Rules and one of them was that appointments could be made on contract basis.

Petitioners challenged the change in the Rules particularly, the change pertaining to appointment, on contract basis by filing a writ petition. Writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 26.11.2010. Now the petitioners have sought review of the judgment by means of the present petition. According to them observation made by the Court in para-18, that they addressed no argument with respect to the change in the Rules, regarding seniority for appointment of trained candidates, is not correct and that in fact the said Rules had been challenged.

Contention that was raised in the petition has been noticed in para-6 of the judgment sought to be reviewed. In para-18, it is specifically mentioned that no submission was made with regard to the said point.

In any case, in another judgment delivered in another case, which also pertains to trained Patwaris, it has been held that the change had been effected even in the old Rules by a notification of 1997 and as per that change, seniority was to be counted on the basis of merit secured in the examination held after training and not on the basis of merit assessed at the time of selection for training. Particulars of that case are CWP No. 2457 of 2009, titled as Rajesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors. decided on 1.12.2010.

In view of above stated position, the present petition is dismissed.