IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 13822 of 2008 Date of decision: 04.03.2011 __________________________________________________________ Dr. Neelam Kumar. .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Yash W. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The services of the petitioner, who was working in the respondent-department as Research Officer, were dispensed with w.e.f. March 31st 2003. Being aggrieved, she moved the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application (OA) No. 560 of 2003, Dr. Neelam Kumar vs. The State of H.P. & another, wherein the following direction was issued vide order dated 31.03.2003: “In view of this position, nothing survives in this Original application and the same is disposed of with no order as to coasts. However, respondents are directed to consider the applicant as and when the same and similar type of vacancy/work will be available with the respondents department. Respondents are further directed to consider the case of the applicant in accordance with the seniority.” 2. Against the above backdrop, the post of Research Officer was advertised by the respondents vide Notice, Annexure A-3. Consequently, the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... petitioner applied for the same, but was not selected. Consequently, he again approached the Administrative Tribunal by way of a fresh OA (OA No. 2157 of 2006) which, on abolition of the said Tribunal, has been transferred to this Court and is registered as CWP(T) No. 13822 of 2008, with the following prayer vide para 7(i): “7(i) That the entire record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned and after perusing the same the impugned order Annexure A-3 may kindly quashed and set-aside and the applicant may be declared as eligible candidate for the post of Scientific/Research Officer as the applicant fulfill all the conditions for the said post prescribed/published by the State Govt.” 3. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 2 of the preliminary submissions: “2. That this department need a person with the qualification of M. Pharma, in DTL ISM Research Lab. Jogindernagar as the incumbent already posted in the said Laboratory with the qualification of D. Pharma/M. Pharma has since been retired from Govt. service and department has advertised some other posts with qualification of M.Sc (Botony) in the said advertisement appearing at Sr. No. 4 for which the applicant was eligible but he did not apply for the same. This post is having the designation of Research Officer and pay as Rs. 10,000/- fixed. Had he applied his mind to apply this post he would have been selected as per the direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 31.3.2003 in OA No. 560/2003. But the applicant deliberately ignored the advertisement causing thereby rejection of his candidature. The present application therefore, is not at all maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in limine.” 4. In view of the above reply, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Research Officer, if otherwise eligible, against an existing ...3... vacancy, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner and in case no such vacancy is available at present, against the first available vacancy that shall occur in future, in accordance with law. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 4th March, 2011 (virender)