RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMAHCAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of letter dated 10th June, 2014 (Annexure P-9), whereby Joint Directorate of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, informed the petitioner, whose name stood recommended by Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Selection Service Board, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh ( for short 'Board') for appointment to the post of PGT (IP) that since his permanent address mentioned in the application form is outside of State of Himachal Pradesh, hence he may produce his Bona-fide Himachali Certificate on or before 20.06.2014, failing which, his candidature to the post of PGT (IP) shall be cancelled without any further notice, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following reliefs:-

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that vide advertisement dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-5), Board advertized 767 posts of PGT (Informatics Practices) in the Department of Education, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner being eligible also applied against the post of PGT (IP), Code No.311 and he being fully qualified and eligible was called for interview by the Board. Vide press note issued by aforesaid Board, dated 24.12.2013, petitioner was declared to be successful in interview and his name was reflected in the merit list at Sr.No.287, as contained in Annexure P-8. Pursuant to aforesaid selection of the petitioner his name came to be recommended to the Department of the Education for offering appointment. However, Directorate of Higher Education of Himachal Pradesh vide impugned order dated 10th June, 2014, called upon the petitioner to submit Bona-fide Himachali Certificate, failing which, his candidature against the post in question shall be cancelled. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that there is no dispute interse parties that petitioner being fully eligible was permitted to participate in the interview by respondent No.3, pursuant to advertisement dated 13.12.2011 issued for appointment against 767 posts of PGI (IP) in the Department of Education. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 after having found petitioner fully eligible declared him successful and his name finds mentioned at Sr. No.287 of the merit list issued by respondent No.3. It is also not in dispute that name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of PGT (IP) was recommended by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, who instead of offering appointment to the petitioner against the post of PGT(IP), called upon him to furnish bona-fide Himachali certificate.