CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 5.12.1997 passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla whereby his Original Application No. 2260/97 has been dismissed. In his Original Application the Petitioner had challenged that mode of appointment to the post of Clerk in Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority-Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter called the Authority) should not be by direct recruitment, for which advertisement was published in Jansatta on 24.11.1997. According to the Petitioner, the mode of appointment to the post of Clerk should be by promotion from amongst Class IV officials who are matriculates and who passess five years regular service, as provided in the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Clerk (Class III, Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1997 (hereinafter called the Rules).

(2.) The Petitioner is matriculate in 2nd Division. He was engaged on daily wage in February, 1989 by the Authority. Thereafter he was appointed as Peon on regular basis by Office Order dated 31.7.1992 (Annexure P-2). He was further appointed as Clerk on ad-hoc basis by Office Order dated 28.2.1997 (Annexure P-3) and has been working as such since then.

(3.) The Rules came into force on 27.9.1997. It is not in dispute that under the Rules the Petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Clerk being matriculate and having five years' regular service. He is also likely to be promoted being the only eligible candidate in the feeder category if the Authority adopts the method of appointment by promotion and he is found fit, the post being non-selection post. But the Authority has adopted the method of appointment by direct recruitment, which gave cause of grievance to the Petitioner.