IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1032 of 2010. Reserved on: 6th July, 2010. Decided on: 14th July, 2010. Anil Kumar. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and ors. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: “(1) The writ of certiorari for quashing the appointment issued in favour of respondent No.6 dated 19/20.1.2010 for the post of Lecturer on Tenure basis for 3 years in the department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in the respondent Dental College 2 pursuant to the advertisement enclosed herewith as P- 5/P-6. (2) The writ of Mandamus for appointing the petitioner as Lecturer on Tenure basis in the department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in the respondent Dental College pursuant to the advertisement enclosed herewith as P-5/P-6 for a period of three years as has been done in case of others appointees under the same advertisement. (3) The writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to deem the petitioner as having qualified the MDS examination retrospectively w.e.f. 12.1.2010 in view of facts, circumstances and applicable rules/ordinances. (4) For a writ of Mandamus to respondent No.1 to take severe action against respondent No.3/4 in capacity as Principal of HP Government Dental College as well as in capacity of Dean Faculty of Dental Sciences and also against respondent number 2 in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The gist of the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition is that his MDS results were deliberately delayed at the instance of respondents No.3 and 4 and, therefore, he could not get the appointment as Lecturer on tenure basis against the GDO quota, as per Annexures P- 5/P-6. It is the case of the petitioner that in the case of all other students, the results were announced on 12.1.2010 and in case his result had also been announced on the said date, he would have been selected being the only candidate available in the specialty concerned against the GDO quota and thus the relevance for the 4th prayer. Since the petitioner has sought writ of mandamus, it is for the petitioner to approach the first respondent in the matter, so 3 that the first respondent would get an opportunity to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law. 3. As far as prayer No.3 is concerned, be it for any reason, the formalities for the declaration of the result were completed only by 10th February, 2010 and on which date the result has been declared. There is no provision under law for retrospective declaration of the result. In case the petitioner has suffered any injury owing to the action/inaction on the part of respondents No.3 and 4 resulting in the delayed declaration of the result, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy. 4. As far as prayers No.1 and 2 in the matter of appointment are concerned, as on the date of appointment of the 6th respondent, admittedly the result of the petitioner had not been announced and he had not obtained the required qualification. In such circumstances only, the 6th respondent has been appointed in terms of the Notification. Therefore, there is no ground for quashing the appointment of the 6th respondent. Again, in case the petitioner has a case that the action/inaction on the part of respondent No.3 and 4 only led to this alleged unfortunate circumstances, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum. 5. Yet with all these, we find that the petitioner has been appointed as Lecturer in the H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery “against the overall vacant posts of Lecturers in the 4 College for a period of one year”. It is seen that the said appointment has been made on the strength of the letter issued by the Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla dated 6th March, 2010. Apparently, the Principal Secretary (Health) has initiated the action based on the various representations filed by the petitioner. Thus, it is fairly clear that the Government was also of the view that the petitioner has suffered some injustice and only to work out justice to the petitioner, Annexure P-18, appointment order was issued. In case vacancies exist in the post of Lecturer in the Dental College, in view of the action already taken by the Government in favour of the petitioner to render justice to the petitioner, it would only be appropriate that the petitioner is also considered for a similar treatment as was given to others, by giving a tenure appointment for a period of three years, subject to availability of vacancy. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Government to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Lecturer for a period of three years, subject to availability of vacancies in the post of Lecturer in the Government Dental College, Shimla, in view of the steps already taken by the Government, as referred to in the letter dated 6th March, 2010 of the Principal Secretary (Health). We make it clear that we have not adverted to the various other contentions taken by the parties in the writ petition and all those contentions are left open, to be pursued, if invoked, in appropriate proceedings. 5 6. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 14th July, 2010 ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.