IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 3879 of 2008. Decided on: 18.05.2009. Shri Sohan Lal. … … … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral): Learned counsel for petitioner confines himself to prayer (i) only. Same is reproduced as under:- “(i) That impugned order dated 28.10.1996 (Annexure A-2) passed by respondent No.3 may be quashed and set aside and the applicant may be allowed to continue discharging duties of Junior Tailor Master at Government Tailoring Training Centre, Rangreek or at such place where the said centre is transferred in future, in the interest of justice.” 1Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Petition was initially filed before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and on 6th January, 1997 following order was passed by the learned Tribunal: - “Admit. Now reply by respondents be filed within six weeks. In the meantime pursuant to the impact of order dated October 22, 1996, Annexure A/2 the applicant is directed to appear before the Block Development Officer Spiti at Kaza within a week and on his appearance before the said authority, The Block Development Officer Spiti at Kaza is directed to issue his posting order as per his appointment letter immediately thereafter, till further orders. ‘Dasti copy’ “ Said order is in operation. Vide letter/order dated 4th June, 1993, Annexure A-1, petitioner was appointed Junior Tailor Master on daily wages. He continued to discharge his duties, to the satisfaction of the authorities till 22nd of October, 1996 when his services were dispensed with for the reason that in view of letter dated 8th October, 1996 issued by Director, Village Development Department, the Government Tailoring Training Centre, Rangreek had to be closed. Petitioner was asked to hand over the material. Order dated 8th of October, 1996, Annexure A-3, in my view has been mis-interpreted and misconstrued by the respondents. The direction of the Government is unequivocally and unambiguously clear. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:- “---- While preparing the list of Panchayats, it may be necessarily kept in view that in the Panchayats, where the tailoring Centres are effectively working, which are opened by Village - 3 - Development Department, these centres will not be opened in such Panchayats and for the time being such Centres would also provide service to two Panchayats. But at the places where Centres are closed, now new centres could be opened and the Machines available in such centres could be used in new centres. Surplus employees would be adjusted in Village Development Department. -------“ (Emphasis supplied). Prior to the issuance of said order the Training Centre, Rangreek had not been closed and the petitioner had been satisfactorily discharging his duties. In para 3 of the reply the respondents in fact have clarified that the cadre of Tailoring Master is a dying cadre and centre would be closed with the retirement of the incumbents. Obviously, said centre was not directed to be closed. For the aforesaid reasons, Annexure A-2 is quashed and set aside. Respondents, in their reply for the first time have taken the plea that petitioner was otherwise ineligible for appointment. The centre was closed not for this reason. If the petitioner is otherwise ineligible, it is always open for respondents to take action in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is disposed of. May 18, 2009. (Sanjay Karol) (sck). Judge.