GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present applicants have sought for the following reliefs in this Original Application: (i) Respondents should appoint the applicants as Wool Graders in the regular scale of the post w.e.f. November 1999 for having undergone the prescribed initial training and having qualified the terminal examination in October, 1999 with all consequential benefits; (ii) Respondents should pay the cost of this O.A. to the applicants, and (iii) Any other or further order or direction deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the applicants.11

(2.) The simple case of the applicants as pleaded has been that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (A -l), the applicants were duly appointed as Wool Graders in August, 1997 (A -2 pattern) against initially available posts and under Rule 7(vii), they were to undergo an initial departmental training for 18 months and after successful completion of training and after passing the terminal examination, the applicants were to be placed in the regular scale of Rs. 1200 -2460 revised further since January 1,1996. According to the applicants, they did undergo the training but failed in the terminal examination held on April 05, 1999 and they were asked on April 26,1999 (Annexure A -3) to undergo training for six more months which were again to be followed by a fresh examination. This extended period of training as per applicants was however, reduced to three months later on. It has been pleaded by the applicants that they completed three months extended training from May 10, 1999 to August 10, 1999 and appeared in the examination held on October 8,1999 (Annexure A -4). As per applicants, the result of the examination has not been declared so far but the applicants were given to understand that they had qualified the examination and were entitled to be placed in the regular scale after the completion of the requisite formalities. The respondents had not released the regular pay scale and given appointments to the applicants. Representation in this behalf also did not bear any result, hence this Original application.

(3.) This application has been contested on behalf of respondent No. 2, the H.P. State Wool Fed. Ltd., Shimla, the sole respondent in the present Original Application as the name of respondent No. I, the State of Himachal Pradesh was got deleted by the applicants. The respondent has not disputed the facts revealed by the applicant. However, it has been pleaded by the respondent that the names of the applicants were forwarded by the replying respondent for approval of the appointment but till date, no order had been received from the Government. There were other objections taken.