DALIP THAKUR Vs. HIGH COURT OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, is an aspirant to the post(s) of Superintendent, Grade-I existing upon the establishments of District and Sessions Judges, posted in Himachal Pradesh. In pursuance to a circular, issued on 5th July, 2016, for filling up post(s) of Superintendent, Grade-I, in the establishments of District and Sessions Judges, posted in Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner herein made an application, for his being considered for selection besides appointment thereto. However, in pursuance to his making an application, no call letter was served upon petitioner, for eliciting his participation in the apposite viva voce. Subsequent thereto, yet prior to his instituting the instant petition, the petitioner made a representation vis-a-vis the Registrar General, High Court of H.P., for his being considered for selection besides appointment to the post of Superintendent, Grade-I, occurring in the establishment(s) of District and Sessions Judges, posted in Himachal Pradesh. The aforesaid representation, stood, as borne by Annexure-II of 23/24.12.2016, hence rejected. Since, the grounds meted in the rejected representation of the petitioner are parameteria vis-a-vis the grounds meted in the extant writ petition, especially qua thereupon direction(s) being meted to the respondent, for his being considered for selection besides appointment to the post(s) of Superintendent, Grade-I, existing or as may occur in the establishments of District and Sessions Judges, posted in Himachal Pradesh, thereupon, dehors the petitioner not challenging the order rejecting his representation, this Court would yet proceed, to dwell upon the efficacy(ies) of the grounds meted in the writ petition, given theirs bearing congruity vis-a-vis the grounds meted in his rejected representation addressed to the respondent. Before dwelling upon the efficacy of the grounds meted in the writ petition, specifically the one appertaining, to validity besides application vis-a-vis him, of the apposite Rules, of 1996, it is apt to extract the hereinafter relief(s) prayed in the writ petition:-

(2.) As borne out on a reading of Annexure P-4, the relevant Rule 4, stood amended by a notification of 22nd August, 1983, comprised in substitution(s) thereto, in the hereinafter extracted manner, being effected, vis-a-vis the apposite Rule 4 of the apposite Rules:-

(3.) Apparently the extantly prevailing sub rules (III) and (IV), of Rule 4 of the Apposite Rules, hence, abrogate the earlier therewith imperative conditions, (i) of the aspirants to the post of Superintendent, holding, a graduate degree or (ii) in alternative thereto, theirs holding 15 years experience in the feeder category, carrying a pay scale of 570-1080 or its revised scale, (iii) rather nowat the aspirants are compulsorily required, to, at the time contemporaneous vis-a-vis the occurrence of vacancy, hence, hold a graduation degree from a recognized university also the aspirant concerned is obliged to hold thereat the apposite feeder post, of Superintendent Grade-II, in the courts subordinate to the High Court, (iv) also the aforesaid post of Superintendent Grade-II in the courts subordinate, to the High Court, is constituted to be the solitary feeder category, for enabling the aspirants concerned, to aspire for, for selection besides for appointment, to the post of Superintendent in the establishments of District and Sessions Judges, posted in Himachal Pradesh. Nonetheless, a proviso thereto, is comprised in a note appended there underneath, wherein, (v) it is ordained of the mandate of amended sub rule (iii) of Rule 4 of the apposite Rules of 1996 remaining inoperative vis-a-vis those candidate(s), who stand prior thereto appointed on a regular basis, in the feeder category concerned.