DEEPAK SAINI Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent -Federation has issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Manager Marketing and Procurement. One Shri Vijay Thakur was appointed as Manager Marketing and Procurement pursuant to the interview held on 20th September, 1995. Petitioner was also offered appointment as Manager Marketing and Procurement vide order dated 25.05.1996 vide Annexure A -2. Shri Vijay Thakur was regularized as Manager Marketing and procurement vide office order dated 18th May, 1998. The name of the petitioner was also recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee for regularization in its meeting held on 2nd September, 2000. However, the regularization orders were not issued. Petitioner approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal for implementation of the recommendations made by the Departmental Selection Committee by way of O.A. No. 908 of 2001. The same was withdrawn on 18.12.2003. Petitioner was regularized on 23.12.2003. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the State Government on 4th February, 2005.

(2.) MR . Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 18.05.1998. He has also argued that as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 19th November, 1997, the initial cadre has to consist of the incumbents already working against the post of Manager Marketing and Procurement subject to their fulfilling the educational and other requirements. He further argued that the case of the petitioner has been recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee in his meeting held on 2nd September, 2000, but the same has been given effect only on 23rd September, 2003. He lastly contended that the rejection of the representation made by his client on 4.02.2005 is also laconic.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.