GARIB DASS Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SOLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the respondent-Municipal Council, Solan on 16th July, 1962. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that taking into consideration his experience against the higher post of Moharar, he should have been promoted to the post of Clerk/Supervisor. It has come in the reply that the case of the petitioner has already been recommended by the respondent-Municipal Council to the State. However, the State has declined the permission to promote the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess the essential educational qualifications. Petitioner had earlier approached the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No.1886 of 2001. Same was disposed of by the learned Himachal Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 25.7.2001 whereby respondent No.2, i.e. Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Solan was directed to consider the O.A. as representation and decide the same. He decided the same on 4.9.2001. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Clerk is 10th pass or 10+2. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Supervisor is matric or 10+2 besides I.T.I. Diploma in Building Petitioner is only 5th pass.Construction from any recognized institution. Recruitment to the post of Clerk/Supervisor is regulated under the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 whereby permission is required to be taken from the Director, Urban Development. The case of the petitioner was though recommended by the respondent-Municipal Council, but the Director, Urban Development, Shimla has rejected the same since the petitioner lacks the prescribed educational qualifications. Since the petitioner does not possess the requisite essential qualifications prescribed under the R&P Rules, he could not be promoted to the post of Clerk/Supervisor.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.