Dimple Kumari vs State Of HP And Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief(s).

“a) Quash the impugned action of the respondents whereby they have selected and appointed the private respondents being arbitrary, malafide and illegal.

b) Direct the respondents to select and appoint the applicant from the date the private respondents were selected and appointed with all the consequential benefits.”

Through reply stands filed by on behalf of respondents Nos. 3, 5 and 10 to 15, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on merit, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the official respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 21.7.2011 passed by this Court in Opinder Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh decided, wherein similar issue has been already adjudicated.

Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

Consequently in view of above present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment supra, expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks. Needless to say, respondents/competent Authority, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, in case she still remains aggrieved.

Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.