KAMLESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to an order dtd. 13/7/2011, passed by respondent No.1, whereby the representation made by her to offer her appointment as Clerk on the analogy of Ms.Sumedha Awasthi (respondent No.3), has been rejected.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that that the petitioner, who is a matriculate, got herself enrolled in the employment office Shimla in the year 1984. Her name was sponsored by the employment office during the year 1991 and in pursuance of the said sponsorship, she was called for interview by respondent No.2 on 23/4/1991 for the post of Clerk to be filled up on daily wage basis. The petitioner was offered appointment for a period of 89 days, as per office order dtd. 30/4/1991, she discharged her duties w.e.f. 30/4/1991 to 29/2/1992. However, thereafter, her services were disengaged.

(3.) The petitioner feeling aggrieved by her disengagement had preferred the Original Application along- with respondent No.3, before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, bearing number No. 190/92., titled, Miss. Sumedha Awasthi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, which was disposed of on 2/4/1993, directing the respondents that as and when daily waged Clerk is recruited, the petitioners shall be considered on priority basis in view of their past service.