RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, common question of facts, and, law are involved in both the afore writ petitions, hence, they are amenable for a common verdict becoming rendered thereon(s).

(2.) The writ petitioner, in CWP No. 1735 of 2020, after serving in the armed forces, became recruited, as, an Assistant Engineer (Electrical), against those vacancy(ies) reserved for exservicemen. His afore recruitment occurred on 12.06.1998, and, he joined in the afore capacity, under, the respondent board, on 22.06.1998. The relevant Rules, holding contemplations, for, reservations being meted, to the afore category, upon, occurrence, of, vacancies, against the afore post, are nomencaltured, as, Reservation of Vacancies in H.P. Technical Service, Rules, 1985 (in short "Rules of 1985". During the currency, of, the petitioner serving under the respondent board, the latter through an office order, made on 23.05.2001, and, as become(s) borne in Annexure P-2, hence promoted the writ petitioner. However, the afore office order carries, an, explicit recital, that, the making of the apposite order of promotion, visa-vis, the writ petitioner, and, also assignment of seniority to him, being subject, to the final decision to be made on OA No.3686 of 2000, titled as Er. Vinod Kumar Bisht and others vs. HPSEB and others. Thereafter, through an order made on 12.12.2019, and, as, borne in Annexure A-2, the respondentboard proceeded to demote the writ petitioner. The reason for the respondent board, hence, making the afore order of demotion, of the writ petitioner, is, encapsulated in the condition imposed in the order of promotion, as, made qua the petitioner, rather becoming fructified, inasmuch, as, upon, a decision being made by this Court, upon, CWP No. 488 of 2001, titled as V.K. Behal and others vs. State of H.P. and others. Furthermore, since therein, this Court had struck down the constitutional validity, of, Rule 5(1), of, the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, rule whereof becomes extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) Be that as it may, since the rule carried in the afore lis does bear, an, almost aplomb similarity in phraseology, hence, with the apposite Rule whereunders, the writ petitioner became assigned seniority, in the seniority list, and, also thereafter become conferred with a conditional order, of promotion, (i) inasmuch, as, the governing Rule, vis-a-vis, the service of the writ petitioner, carrying the nomenclature, of, (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Technical Services) Rules, 1985, whereas, the apposite rescontroversia, as, comprised in the afore lis, appertaining, to, the validity, of, the apposite rule, wherein rather the word "nontechnical" occurs. (ii) However, the afore minimal dis-similarity inter se the afore, and, the extant rule, becomes subsumed, in, the hereat rule, excepting the afore minimal dissimilarity, in nomenclautre, rather carrying alike inclination(s), vis-a-vis, exservicemen/armed personnel, who thereafter become inducted in civil employment, (iii) inasmuch, as, the period of rendition(s) of service by them, in the armed forces, being recknonable rather for the purpose(s) of assignment(s) of seniority to them, besides for meteing promotion(s) to them, (iii) whereupon, the afore conclusive decision, made, upon, the vires, of, the afore rules, does hold clout even qua the hereat lis, (iv) yet even the afore Rule, through carrying , a, language paramateria with the phraseology, of the apposite Rule, hence, struck down by this Court in V.K. Behal's case (supra), also became meted a conclusive adjudication, through a verdict made, upon, CWP No.132 of 2010, titled as Baljeet Singh and another vs. HPSEB and others. Even, in the verdict rendered, upon, Baljeet Singh's case (supra), this Court, on 30.12.2010, had made an allusion, that, a paramateria lis, awaiting adjudication, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and, also thereafter, upon, consent of the counsel appearing for the contesting litigants, had proceeded to dispose of the afore writ petition, with a direction, upon, the respondents to take further appropriate action, however, subject to the out come of the SLP, as, emanated from a decision made by this Court, upon, V.K. Behal's case (supra). Necessarily, hence, despite no decision on merits or upon the vires of the afore rule being made by this Court, yet with the counsels appearing for the contesting litigants, agreeing to abide by the decision to be taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, the SLP, as arose therebefore, against a decision made by this Court, in V.K. Behal's case, hence, the conclusive, and, binding verdict, as, made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, the SLP directed against the afore judgment, by the aggrieved, does become the governing rule, or the ratio decidendi hence, for also determining the lis at hand.