SUMAN THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 14642 of 2008.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the interviews for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Nohan, Gram Panchayat, Balog under Mashobra Block were held on 19.8.2005, which led to selection of one Sh. Sandeep Thakur. Petitioners name was placed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list. Mr. Sandeep Thakur left the job on 29.8.2006. Thereafter, petitioner approached the competent authority seeking direction to respondent No.4 to permit her to join the duties. Case of the petitioner was also recommended by the Director of Primary Education to the Block Primary Education Officer on 17.11.2006. However, the fact of the matter is that petitioner was not offered appointment by respondent No.4. Petitioner approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing the present petition, which after abolition of the Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP (T) No.14642 of 2008. Learned Single Judge dismissed the same.

(3.) THE suitability of the petitioner was adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee and her name was included in the panel. Petitioners case was recommended by the Director of Primary Education to the Block Primary Education Officer for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher on 17.11.2006. Thereafter, it was incumbent upon respondent No.4 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Nohan. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has referred to the scheme under which the appointments are made to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher called Himachal Pradesh Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/ Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme, 2003 -. According to learned Single Judge, there was no provision for making panel. It is settled law under the service jurisprudence that when the appointments are made, panel is also made. Generally, life of the panel depends on the service rules. It is not the case of the respondent -State that fresh selection process was initiated after Mr. Sandeep Thakur left the job on 29.8.2006. It is true that a person, who has been selected, has no indefeasible right to appointment. However, it is also well settled by now that the employer has to assign cogent and convincing reasons while denying the appointment to the selected candidate. In the case in hand, no convincing reasons have been given by respondent No.4 why the petitioner, who was at Sr. No.1 in panel, has not been offered appointment after Mr. Sandeep Thakur has left the job.