SMT. MANJU KUMARI, WIFE OF SH. RAJESH VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE, SAJAO PIPLU, TEHSIL, SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2, H.P.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has instituted this writ petition praying that writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing them to offer appointment as TGT (Arts) to the petitioner on the basis of result declared on 30.10.2002 pursuant to the written test conducted on 29.9.2002 more especially in compliance to the orders of this Hon'ble in CWP No. 3513 of 2009, titled Manoj Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. It is undisputed before me that in CWP No. 3513 of 2009 (Annexure P -1 to the petition), the writ petitioners had approached this Court with the prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to complete the process for recruitment of the petitioners for the post of TGT (Arts) and TGT (Medical & Non -Medical) on the basis of the result declared on 30.10.2002. In its decision this Court holds that the appointments were initially held up only on account of announcement of the model code of conduct in connection with Assembly elections in the year 2003 and thereafter the long delay of 6 years is only on account of the inquiry etc. The relevant portion of the judgment reads:

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the directions as issued in Manoj Kumar's case (supra) are squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that on the date of filing of the application, she was eligible in all respondent and belong to IRDP category and the delay, if any, occasioned only on the part of the respondents and not on the part of the petitioner. He submits that this stand established by the judgment of this Court in Manoj Kumar's case (supra).

(3.) THIS is in fact is the gist of the entire submission made on behalf of the parties. It is undisputed before that document Annexure R -1, was submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. M.V. Nair versus Union of India and others, : (1993) 2 SCC 429 holding: