NARESH SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh. Naresh Singh Thakur, is Aggrieved by the order dated 28.8 1995 whereby he has been placed under suspension with immediate effect Factual position so far as relevant for determination of the controversy needs to be noted in brief. The applicant was appointed as Co -operative Education Instructor on 17.4.1967. For the post of Manager in the printing press applications were invited from Co -operative Instructors vide memo dated 9.4.1970. The applicant who had applied for the post of Manager was duty interviewed and selected for the post of Manager vide annexure A -2 The Himachal Pradesh State Co -operative Union (in short Union) had three wings Le.(1) Co -operative Education (2) Co -operative Printing Press and (3) Cooperative Training. AH the three wings are being controlled by the officers of equal status working in the identical pay scale. The Himachal Pradesh State Co -operative Union Service Recruitment (Promotion and condition of service) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred as Rules) have been duly approved by respondent No. 3, copy whereof is annexure A -3. As per Rules post of Principal, Co -operative Training Centre and the cooperative education officer have been included in the feeder category to the post of Secretary. However, the post of Manager has not been included in the feeder category for the post of Secretary. The applicant had been stagnating in the same post i.e. Manager, Printing Press since 1970 and as per Rules he is not eligible for promotion to the post of Secretary. No avenue of promotion is provided. Though there is no reason for not including the post of Manager for further promotion to the post of Secretary. In view of factual position above and on account of Sh. G.R. Sharma and one Sh. PS. Jaret were likely to be promoted to the post of Secretary without considering the claim of the applicant. He submitted representation Annexure A -4 dated 14.7.1994. but it was rejected vide Annexure A -6 dated 11.10.1994.

(2.) Sh. Hans Raj Chauhan, respondent No 4 who was holding the post of Superintendent i.e. the post of ministerial side and did not fulfil the criteria was promoted to the post of secretary. He is matriculate and does not fulfil the essential qualification. The respondent No.4 took over the charge of Secretary on 1.12.1994 vide annexure A -7, therefore, applicant aggrieved by the act of the respondent filed 0A.3378/94, wherein he had prayed the following reliefs: - (i) That the impugned Annexures A -1, A -5, A -6 dated 22nd/23rTl October, 1990. 11.10.1994 and 1st Dec, 1994 respectively may be quashed and set aside; (ii) That Annexure A -4, dated 22.9.1994 may be quashed to the extent whereby the applicant has been deprived of the benefits of seniority and promotion to the post of Secretary after applying the principles of severability and the Respondent No.1 may be directed to frame separate service rules for the Press employees as per Annexure A -4. (iii) That the respondents No.1 to 3 may be directed to consider the post of Manager, Printing Press equivalent to the post of Principal, Co -operative Training Centre and Coop. Education Officer for further promotion to the post of Secretary on the analogy that all the three posts i.e. Manager, Printing Press; Principal, Coop. Training Centre and Coop. Education Officer are in the same pay scale of Rs.2000 -35000. (iv) That the respondents No.1 to No. 3 may also be directed to reframe the I seniority list after showing the applicant at Sr. No.2 before Shri G.R. Sharma. (v) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted."

(3.) The .original application was disposed of vide order Annexure A -8 by treating it as representation.