shastri exam 2014 cancelled by hp high court

Hig

h Court

of H.P

.IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

SHIMLA

CWP No. 1141/2014 a/w CWPs No. 928, 929, 937, 938, 939, 940, 953, 954, 959, 972, 1057, 1084, 1262 & 2296/2014.

Date of decision: 28.4.2014

CWP No. 1141/2014 Kiran Kumari & another …..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents CWP No. 928/2014 Ajay Singh & others …..Petitioners

Versus Subordinate Services Selection Board …Respondent CWP No. 929/2014 Sandeep Kumar …..Petitioner

Versus Subordinate Services Selection Board …Respondent CWP No. 937/2014 Suresh Kumar …..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents CWP No. 938/2014 Anil Dutt …..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents CWP No. 939/2014 Pratap Singh …..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents CWP No. 940/2014 Balbir Singh …..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents CWP No. 953/2014 Mamta Devi …..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents

::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2014 19:21:56 :::HCHP

Hig

h Court

of H.P

.

- 2 -

CWP No. 954/2014 Pawn Kumar & others …..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents CWP No. 959/2014 Karan Singh …..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents CWP No. 972/2014 Anil Kumar …..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents CWP No. 1057/2014 Neel Kamal & others …..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents CWP No. 1084/2014 Balram & others …..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents CWP No. 1262/2014 Shiv Lal & others …..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents CWP No. 2296/2014 Uday Singh …..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?


Hig

h Court

of H.P

.

- 3 -

For the petitioner(s): M/s Jyotsna Rewal Dua, V.D. Khidtta, Vir Bahadur Verma, Adhiraj Singh, Vikrant Chandel, Surender K. Sharma, Avinash Jaryal, Advocates.

For the respondent(s): Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate

General, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocates General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals for the respondents-State.

M/s Archana Dutt, Aruna Sharma

and Raj Kumar Negi, Advocates, for the respondent-Board.

_______________________________________________________ Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ (Oral)

Through the medium of the present writ

petitions, the petitioners have called in question the

orders, whereby the respondents have rejected the

candidature of the petitioners for the posts of Shastri, on

the grounds that they are ineligible for the said posts.

2. It is contended in the writ petitions that the

respondents in the advertisement notice dated 20.5.2013

for the posts of Shastri had not mentioned that the

candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/PH categories,

have to be given 5% relaxation in the minimum

educational qualification, as per Rules governing the

field. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to

do so and advertisement notice dated 20.5.2013 is not

according to Rules governing the field.

3. Respondent No. 1 has filed reply and has

fairly admitted that as per the Rules governing the field,

5% relaxation was to be given in minimum educational


Hig

h Court

of H.P

.

- 4 -

qualification to the candidates belonging to

SC/ST/OBC/PH categories.

4. The learned Advocate General fairly

conceded that the advertisement made is not in

accordance with the law and the Rules. The candidates

belonging to SC/ST/OBC/PH categories, who had

tendered their application forms and came to be

rejected, is illegal and not in accordance with the Rules.

5. Respondent No. 2 has also filed the reply and

fairly quoted the said rules in the reply and submitted

that they have received the communication/

clarification from the State Government, Annexure R-1,

dated 13.2.2014 regarding grant of relaxation upto 5%

marks for the posts of TGT (Arts), to the candidates

belonging to SC/ST/OBC/PH categories. The same

mistake had been committed by the respondents so far

as advertisement notice for the posts of TGT (Arts) is

concerned which the respondents have rectified. The

record does reveal that the advertisement notice for the

posts of TGT (Arts) and Shastri is same.

6. Having said so, the rejection order deserves

to be quashed and all those candidates belonging to

the SC/ST/OBC/PH categories, who had applied and

whose candidatures have been rejected, deserve to be

allowed to sit in the examination.

7. In the given circumstances, respondents are

directed to conduct the examination afresh of all those


Hig

h Court

of H.P

.

- 5 -

candidates who have already undergone examination

alongwith the candidates whose application forms were

rejected, for the posts of shastri. The process be

concluded as early as possible, preferably within three

months from today.

8. With the aforesaid observations, all the

petitions stand disposed of alongwith all pending

applications.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Acting Chief Justice. April 28, 2014 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (c.m.thakur) Judge


shastri exam 2014 cancelled by hp high court

Documents