IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P.I.L No. 45 of 2009 Decided on: 15th September, 2010 Court on its own motion Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. J.K.Vema, Dy. A.G for respondent No. 1. Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) This writ petition was registered suo motu as public interest litigation by this Court with reference to news item, that appeared in the ‘Dailik Jagran’ and also a letter by Mr. R.K. Gupta with regard to the conduct of Institutions for Physically Challenged Children. We find from the affidavit filed by the General Secretary to the Himachal Pradesh Council for Child Welfare that the Council has looked into various aspects and has also taken timely action in the matter of upkeep and maintenance. 2 Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate, appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae, has submitted that the Council should also think of starting vocational training in the institutions so that rehabilitation process of the physically challenged children could be better facilitated. Since, the children are differently abled, this is an issue the Council and the Government should seriously consider. Depending on the different ability and capacity of the children, the State shall take appropriate action for starting vocational training courses either in the various institutions or should set up such institutions for the differently abled children, so that the children may not have frustration after 10th standard, when they have confidence of their different ability with them. Necessary action in this regard shall be taken by the State and the Welfare Council at least from the academic session 2011-12. 3. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), September 15, 2010(K) Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 5618 of 2010 Decided on: 15th September, 2010 Gian Chand Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K.Vema, Dy. A.G. __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved since he has been relieved as Resident Doctor from Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College & Hospital, Kangra at Tanda. According to the petitioner, he has not completed even two years as Resident Doctor and there are Medical Officers in Tanda with longer tenure. It is also submitted that a Resident Doctor normally gets tenure of three years and with such an expectation, the petitioner had made his arrangements for a period of three years at Kangra. 2. All these aspects, the petitioner may point out before the first respondent. In the event of petitioner making a representation within one week, the matter will be considered by the first respondent and appropriate orders, adverting to the submissions made by the petitioner, shall be passed within another ten days. 3. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), September 15, 2010(K) Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3600 of 2010 Decided on: 15th September, 2010 M/s Self Store Akhara Bazar, Kullu Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Petitioner: Mr. Goverdhan Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K.Vema, Dy. A.G. __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the intervening developments, no further relief is required in this writ petition except the reservation of the liberty to the petitioner to pursue its grievance in statutory proceedings. Liberty, as above, is granted. The petition is closed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), September 15, 2010(K) Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA L.P.A. No. 98 of 2009 Decided on: 15th September, 2010 H.P.S.E.B. Appellant Versus Satish Kumar and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Appellant: Mr.Tarlok Jamwal, Advocate For Respondent No.1: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Respondent is the appellant. This is an appeal filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment, dated 21.4.2009 in CWP(T) No. 4490 of 2008. The dispute is in narrow compass as to whether the writ petitioner was entitled to get grace marks under the H.P. State Electricity Board Supervisory Accounts Service (Examination) Regulations, 1985. There are four subjects. The writ petitioner in the first attempt secured more than 45% marks in three subjects, but failed to secure the required 45% marks in fourth subject. It is seen that he was treated as having passed in 3 subjects, though he secured 45% and he was permitted to appear only in one subject in which he had not secured 45% marks. In the second attempt, the petitioner secured 118 out of 200 marks . The regulations require that such candidate should secure 60% marks. The writ petitioner claims the benefit of grace marks. The provision regarding grace marks clearly states, as extracted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that in case a person has been exempted from appearing in some paper and in the remaining paper/papers in case the candidate is short of five marks, he will be entitled to grace marks upto 5. The learned Single Judge held in favour of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved, the Electricity Board came in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the Board vehemently contended that the question of grace marks arises only in case a candidate has been exempted from re-appearing in any paper, having had secured 60% marks or above in any other subjects. Admittedly the petitioner had not secured 60% or above in three out of four subjects in his first attempt. Yet, the candidate was exempted from re-appearing in all the three papers. He was required to appear only in one paper. If that be so, the very conduct of the Board in having permitted the writ petitioner to have taken examination in only one paper out of four papers, it is to be taken that there was deemed exemption and thus the writ petitioner was entitled to grace marks. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The writ petitioner shall be entitled to grace marks and consequential benefits. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), September 15, 2010(K) Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3828 of 2010 Decided on: 15th September, 2010 Geeta Ram Sharma Petitioner Versus State of H.P. through Secretary, HPSEB Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Appellant: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The issue raised in this writ petition is with regard to the claim made by the writ petitioner for grace marks. An identical issue was considered by the learned Single Judge of this court in CWP(T) No. 4490 of 2008 Satish Kumar Vs. H.P.S.E.B. and others and in appeal, we have held as follows:- “Respondent is the appellant. This is an appeal filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment, dated 21.4.2009 in CWP(T) No. 4490 of 2008. The dispute is in narrow compass as to whether the writ petitioner was entitled to get grace marks under the H.P. State Electricity Board Supervisory Accounts Service (Examination) Regulations, 1985. There are four subjects. The writ petitioner in the first attempt secured more than 45% marks in three subjects, but failed to secure the required 45% marks in fourth subject. It is seen that he was treated as having passed in 3 subjects, though he secured 45% and he was permitted to appear only in one subject in which he had not secured 45% marks. In the second attempt, the petitioner secured 118 out of 200 marks . The regulations require that such candidate should secure 60% marks. The writ petitioner claims the benefit of grace marks. The provision regarding grace marks clearly states, as extracted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that in case a person has been exempted from appearing in some paper and in the remaining paper/papers in case the candidate is short of five marks, he will be entitled to grace marks upto 5. The learned Single Judge held in favour of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved, the Electricity Board came in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the Board vehemently contended that the question of grace marks arises only in case a candidate has been exempted from re-appearing in any paper, having had secured 60% marks or above in any other subjects. Admittedly the petitioner had not secured 60% or above in three out of four subjects in his first attempt. Yet, the candidate was exempted from re- appearing in all the three papers. He was required to appear only in one paper. If that be so, the very conduct of the Board in having permitted the writ petitioner to have taken examination in only one paper out of four papers, it is to be taken that there was deemed exemption and thus the writ petitioner was entitled to grace marks. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The writ petitioner shall be entitled to grace marks and consequential benefits.” 2. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to grace marks and consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), September 15, 2010(K) Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3957 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Narender Singh Panta ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Devinder Chauhan Jaitu, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioners is aggrieved by Annexure P-1, order of transfer. 2. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General points out that for the last 11 years, the petitioner has been continuing in the same school, but the submission of the petitioner is that he was contract teacher and only last year, he was regularized. He also submits that his wife is also in the same school and he has a child less than one year. 3. The petitioner may point out all these aspects before the second respondent, in which case appropriate orders in that regard will be passed by the second respondent within a period of two weeks. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 2814 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Dheeraj Sen ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer from Chuwari in District Chamba to Rohru in District Shimla. 2. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner had been continuing in his own district ever since 1995. But it is to be seen that from 1997 to 2004 he has served in tribal areas in Chamba district. Be that, as it may. It is pointed out that he is to retire in less than two years. According to the petitioner, after the policy, an employee cannot be disturbed within two years of his retirement. Since he is due to retire in March, 2012, the petitioner prays that he may not be disturbed at the fag end of his retirement. 3. The petitioner may file an appropriate representation before the first respondent within a period of one month from today, pointing out all these aspects, in which case the first respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and justice. In case the petitioner has not been relieved as on today, further proceeding in that regard will be deferred. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3214 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Keshav Ram ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Prakash , Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-3, order of transfer. According to the petitioner, physical condition of the petitioner and his wife requires continuance at the present station. There is no reply. 2. The petitioner may point out all these aspects before the second respondent by filing an appropriate representation within a period of two weeks from today in which case the second respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and justice. In case the petitioner has not been relieved as on today, further proceeding in that regard will be deferred. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3329 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Hem Lata ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.2: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- “That the respondents may be directed to appoint the present petitioner on the post of a Clerk out of the quota of physically handicapped disabled persons.” 2. It is seen from Annexure P-5 that the name of the petitioner had already been recommended by the Vice-Chancellor for appointment. There will be a direction to the Vice-Chancellor to see that recommendation is implemented, subject to the eligibility of the petitioner. Needful shall be done within a period of two weeks on the production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3574 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Krishana Devi ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. Raman Prashar, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A-1, order of transfer. In the nature of order, we propose to pass, we do not think that this court should go into the merits of the case. The petitioner may file appropriate representation before the 3rd respondent within 10 days, in which case the matter be duly considered by the 3rd respondent and appropriate orders in accordance with law will be passed thereon within another two weeks. Interim order, passed by this court, will continue till such time. However, it is made clear that there shall not be two teachers working against the same post. We also make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to point out the vacant places, where the petitioner can be accommodated, without disturbing anybody else. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3957 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Narender Singh Panta ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Devinder Chauhan Jaitu, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioners is aggrieved by Annexure P-1, order of transfer. 2. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General points out that for the last 11 years, the petitioner has been continuing in the same school, but the submission of the petitioner is that he was contract teacher and only last year, he was regularized. He also submits that his wife is also in the same school and he has a child less than one year. 3. The petitioner may point out all these aspects before the second respondent, in which case appropriate orders in that regard will be passed by the second respondent within a period of two weeks. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 2814 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Dheeraj Sen ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer from Chuwari in District Chamba to Rohru in District Shimla. 2. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner had been continuing in his own district ever since 1995. But it is to be seen that from 1997 to 2004 he has served in tribal areas in Chamba district. Be that, as it may. It is pointed out that he is to retire in less than two years. According to the petitioner, after the policy, an employee cannot be disturbed within two years of his retirement. Since he is due to retire in March, 2012, the petitioner prays that he may not be disturbed at the fag end of his retirement. 3. The petitioner may file an appropriate representation before the first respondent within a period of one month from today, pointing out all these aspects, in which case the first respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and justice. In case the petitioner has not been relieved as on today, further proceeding in that regard will be deferred. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3214 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Keshav Ram ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Prakash , Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-3, order of transfer. According to the petitioner, physical condition of the petitioner and his wife requires continuance at the present station. There is no reply. 2. The petitioner may point out all these aspects before the second respondent by filing an appropriate representation within a period of two weeks from today in which case the second respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and justice. In case the petitioner has not been relieved as on today, further proceeding in that regard will be deferred. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3329 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Hem Lata ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.2: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- “That the respondents may be directed to appoint the present petitioner on the post of a Clerk out of the quota of physically handicapped disabled persons.” 2. It is seen from Annexure P-5 that the name of the petitioner had already been recommended by the Vice-Chancellor for appointment. There will be a direction to the Vice-Chancellor to see that recommendation is implemented, subject to the eligibility of the petitioner. Needful shall be done within a period of two weeks on the production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3574 of 2010 Decided on: 13th July, 2010. Krishana Devi ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. Raman Prashar, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A-1, order of transfer. In the nature of order, we propose to pass, we do not think that this court should go into the merits of the case. The petitioner may file appropriate representation before the 3rd respondent within 10 days, in which case the matter be duly considered by the 3rd respondent and appropriate orders in accordance with law will be passed thereon within another two weeks. Interim order, passed by this court, will continue till such time. However, it is made clear that there shall not be two teachers working against the same post. We also make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to point out the vacant places, where the petitioner can be accommodated, without disturbing anybody else. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 5186 of 2008 Decided on: 31th August, 2010 Baldev Singh Petitioner Versus Respondents State of H.P. & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Himmat Negi, vice Counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Challenge is on Annexure P-4, seniority list published by the 2nd respondent. The only dispute is with regard to the placement of work charged surveyors above the direct recruits into regular service.