IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 669 of 2006 Date of decision June 25, 2008. __________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 669 of 2006 H.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 CWP No. 669 of 2006 For the Petitioner : Shri Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1 to 3: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent no.4: Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This writ petition has been preferred by the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank against the order passed by Additional Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of H.P. in proceedings under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Act), affirming the order passed by Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 9.6.2005 upholding the validity of the appointment of respondent No.4 Dil Bahadur, as a Schedule Tribe candidate . 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Shri Dil Bahadur, respondent No.4, filed proceeding under Section 73 of the Act against the petitioner herein pleading therein that he had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of an Apprentice (Grade IV). He appeared for the written test which was conducted on 10.11.1992 and after successfully clearing it, appeared for an interview on 23.11.1993.. He belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category in which capacity he competed in the test. It was alleged that he had produced certificate testifying this fact for the inspection of the petitioner bank. On 27.11.1993 the respondent as aforesaid was selected and appointed as Apprentice (Clerk), later on absorbed in the cadre of Junior Clerks. In the month of August, 2004 the petitioner was surprised that his name was being reflected in the category of Scheduled Caste employees despite the fact that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category which fact had been verified by the petitioner herein. The petitioner made a representation on 4.9.2004 which was rejected holding that the respondent had been selected against the Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner produced the relevant papers before the Additional Registrar also showing that he was inhabitant of District Kinnaur and was treated as Kinnaura. He also produced his Kisan Pass Book in support of this case. The Additional Registrar held that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had certified the petitioner to be Scheduled Tribe category. He accordingly allowed the respondent as aforesaid to be considered against the Scheduled Tribe category. The copy of order passed (Annexure PC) was not accepted by the petitioner and an appeal was preferred under Section 93 of the Act. Vide order Annexure PE, the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Secretary exercising powers of the Secretary under the Act holding therein that any mistake which may have been committed by the Employment Exchange in forwarding the name of respondent No.4 herein cannot be construed as a deliberate act on the part of the respondent as aforesaid and the mistake should be rectified. On the basis of the 3 certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nichar considered by the Additional Registrar and the other fact on the record, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has now challenged this order Annexure PE in appeal on a number of grounds. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the pleadings. At the outset, it must be observed that the bank being model employer should have considered the case of the respondent as aforesaid with compassion and objectivity instead of dragging him to litigation. If some mistake had been committed by the Employment Exchange, there was grace in accepting it and rectifying it rather than litigating against an individual employee. On facts, I find that both the Additional Registrar and Additional Secretary have considered the facts of the case thoroughly and have not committed any illegality. Merely making an issue out of the fact for the sake of litigation cannot be permitted by way of present writ petition. This petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. June 25,2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge 4