UTTAM SINGH Vs. TEJ RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of the note of the Registry, respondent No. 1 has been served after admission, has chosen not to appear. Hence, he is set exparte.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and order, dated 21st February, 2011, made by the learned Single Judge/Writ Court in CWP (T) No. 7364 of 2008, titled as Tej Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitionerrespondent No. 1 herein was allowed and the appointment of writ respondent No. 4appellant herein as Takniki Sahayak in Gram Panchayats Thachi, Murah, Kau came to be quashed (for short "the impugned judgment").

(3.) The writ record does disclose that the writ petitionerrespondent No. 1 herein has chosen to remain absent on 9th December, 2010 and 6th January, 2011. In terms of the mandate of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC"), the writ petition was to be dismissed in default and the Writ Court had no occasion to grant the writ petition without hearing the writ petitioner. But despite the fact that nobody appeared on behalf of the writ petitionerrespondent No. 1 herein, the writ petition was allowed and the appointment of writ respondent No. 4 appellant came to be quashed.