RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having done diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Himachal Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board, petitioner herein made an application for the post of Trainer Information Communication Technology System and Maintenance, pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondent-department in August, 2019. On 16/10/2019, petitioner was declared successful in the screening test held at Kangra and thereafter, he was asked to appear for evaluation and document verification at Sundernagar. On 28/11/2019, petitioner presented himself at sunderngar for evaluation and document verification and he was awarded 6.35 marks out of 15 marks. On 6/11/2020, respondent issued letter to the petitioner asking him to attend office for verification of educational qualification and other testimonial/certificates. Though, pursuant to aforesaid call given by respondent No.2, petitioner attended the office of respondent No.2 on 11/11/2020, but despite verification of her documents, he was not offered appointment against the post in question. On 12/3/2021, petitioner was informed under the RTI that petitioner could not be offered appointment on account of modal code of conduct imposed in light of elections of various Panchayati Raj of Institutions in HP and panel has exhausted on 3/1/2021 after expiry of one year. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief:

(2.) Reply to the petition stands filed, wherein factum with regard to the participation of the petitioner in the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement issued in August, 2019, has been duly admitted. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated in their reply that final result of the selection process under reference was declared vide office order dtd. 3/1/2020, whereby Trainers in different trades were engaged under students Welfare Fund. Persons namely Sh. Anil Jagota, Sh. Himanshu Sharma and Ms. Richa Guleria were shown at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3, respectively, in the merit list drawn in trade of Information, Communication, Technology System and Maintenance, qua which trade, petitioner had also applied. Since Sh. Anil Jagota, who was at serial No.1 in the merit list did not join the service, person figuring at Sr. No.1 of the waiting list was offered appointment against the post in question, however, other selected candidates namely Himanshu Sharma and Richa Guleria, after having joined the post in question resigned on 27/7/2020 and 9/7/2020, respectively, as is evident from Annexure R-2 annexed with the reply filed by the respondents. On account of aforesaid development, the respondent department called three persons from the waiting list for joining against the aforesaid three posts. Person figuring at Sr. No.1 of the waiting list did not respond to the call given by the respondent-department and as such, person next to him in the waiting list came to be appointed against the post of Mr. Anil Jagota, who after having selected had not joined.

(3.) Precisely, case of the petitioner, who is at Sr. No.3 of the waiting list is that since other two posts had fallen vacant on account of resignations tendered by Sh. Himanshu Sharma and Ms. Richa Guleria, department ought to have offered him appoint against one of the post. However, aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that two posts fell vacant on account of resignation tendered by Sh. Himanshu Sharma and Ms. Richa Guleria and as such, person figuring in the waiting list could not have been offered appointment against such post, rather to fill up such posts, department is /was under obligation to start fresh selection process. Since person namely Anil Jagota, who was at Serial No. 1 in the merit list, did not join, department rightly offered his post to a person figuring at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list.