Sashi Pal vs State of H.P. and Others

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.—Heard counsel for the parties. Admit. As short question is involved in this appeal, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. This appeal takes exception to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th October, 2011 in CWP (T) No. 16072 of 2008. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition preferred by private respondent No. 4 challenging the appointment of the appellant before this Court following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Pawan Kumar and others, LPA No. 251 of 2011 decided on 7th September, 2011.

The grievance of the appellant is that the fact situation in the aforesaid case is distinguishable. For, in the present case, the appellant possessed necessary qualification on the date of advertisement and was, therefore, eligible for being considered to be appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher. No finding has been rendered by the learned Single Judge on this factual aspect of the matter at all. This grievance will have to be accepted, as we find that before applying the ratio stated in the decision in Arjun Singh''s case (supra), no finding has been recorded one way or the other about the eligibility of the appellant. If that finding is rendered in favour of the appellant, the outcome of the writ petition would certainly be different. We need not dilate on the factual position in the present appeal. In the fact situation, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned decision and relegate the parties before the learned Single Judge by setting aside the impugned judgment and restoring the writ petition to the file to its original number for being reconsidered afresh. We make it clear that this decision is not an expression of opinion either way on the merits of the controversy. All questions including the plea of the original writ petitioner about the eligibility of the appellant will have to be decided by the learned Single Judge afresh on its own merits. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Since the appellant has ceased to be in office as a consequence of the impugned decision, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it may not be possible for us to direct restoration of the status quo ante, but instead in the interest of justice, we may expect expeditious disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition be listed for hearing before the appropriate Bench on 13th May, 2013. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.