LAWS(HPH)-2012-10-57

SHRI BHUSHAN LAL SHARMA SON OF SHRI DULE RAM SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHAPROHAL, P.O. GAGAL, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HP. Vs. STATE OF HP THROUGH SECRETARY (IPH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA AND ORS.

Decided On October 03, 2012
Shri Bhushan Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Dule Ram Sharma, Resident Of Village Chhaprohal, P.O. Gagal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, Hp. Appellant
V/S
State Of Hp Through Secretary (Iph) To The Government Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above titled petitions were filed before the erstwhile Tribunal, after its abolition these were transferred to this Court as such registered as Writ Petitions, whereby the selection, of the private respondents for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Class -I in IPH Department of the State Government has been questioned. Heard and gone through the record.

(2.) PRECISELY the facts worth mentioning are that the 2nd respondent -Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, in short 'the Commission' issued Advertisement No. II of 2003 inviting applications on prescribed proforma from the eligible candidates for the various posts, including six posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) Gazetted Class -I. Out of these six posts, five were reserved for general ex -servicemen and one for Scheduled Caste ex -serviceman (backlog). The interviews were conducted on 6th, 7th and 8th January, 2004 by the Selection Committee constituted by the Commission of two experts and they recommended the names of six candidates including the petitioners. A controversy arose regarding these recommendations. Accordingly, both the petitioners filed CWP No. 97 of 2004 seeking appropriate directions in view of the differences which had arisen between the Members of the Selection Committee. The Principal Bench of this Court headed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri V.K. Gupta took note of various facts giving rise to the controversy, finally disposed of the petition vide a detailed order dated 22.4.2004 (Annexure A -1) by issuing the following directions:

(3.) IT shall not be out of place to mention that the 3rd respondent did not join, as such, his name was ordered to be deleted vide order dated 8.3.201. Now the petitions survive only against 4th and 5th respondents.