AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
As common issues of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, they are being disposed of vide common judgment.
For convenience, facts and Annexures appended with CWP No.11745 of 2024 are being referred hereinbelow.
Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that process was initiated for appointment of a Part-Time Multi-Task worker under the Part-Time Multi-Task Workers Policy, 2022, as amended from time to time, for GPS Chandraini, Education Block Dharampur, District Solan, H.P.
Both Prikshit and Veena, who are the petitioners as well as private respondents in each other's writ petitions, applied for the post in issue. The appointment to the said post was offered to Smt. Veena. Feeling aggrieved, Prikshit preferred an appeal against the said appointment and in terms of order dated 30.01.2023, appended with CWP No.11745 of 2024 as Annexure P-4, the appeal of Prikshit was allowed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal by passing the following order:-
“Hence after going through the entire case documents, record and hearing both the parties in detail and hearing arguments and giving all the opportunity for evidence. The objection raised by the applicant is found relevant and valid and the appeal of the applicant is hereby accepted. Hence it is directed to the selection committee that the selection of Smt. Veena is set aside and be considered null and void. And Sh. Prikshit the applicant be selected as per the PTMTW policy. The result be drawn accordingly within 15 days of receipt of this order. The file after due completion and compliance be consigned to the General Record Room. Announced in the open court on this day 30th of January, 2023.”
This resulted in the issuance of office order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof, it was ordered that the post in issue be offered to Prikshit and the services of Smt.Veena be terminated. Petitioner joined his duties as such vide Annexure P-6 dated 26.06.2023.
In the meantime, Smt. Veena had preferred a writ petition against the appellate order, i.e. CWP No. 4151 of 2023, titled Veena vs. State of H.P. and Others. In the said case, on 27.06.2023, the following order was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court:-
“CWP No.4151 of 2023 & CMP No.7871 of 2023 Notice before admission. Mr. Arsh Rattan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4.
Since the order passed by the 3rd respondent and the consequential order issued by 4th and 5th respondents on its basis are prima facie vitiated on the ground of violation of natural justice i.e. non issuance of notice by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner while entertaining the appeal filed by the 6th respondent, which was also not filed within time, there shall be an interim stay of order dt. 30.01.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent as well as the consequential orders passed by 4th and 5th respondents.
List on 21.09.2023.”
In compliance to order dated 27.06.2023, passed by this Court, Annexure P-8. Order dated 30.06.2023 was passed by the Authority concerned and Prikshit was discharged from his duties in compliance with the interim order passed by the Court.
Thereafter, when the writ petition was listed before the Court on 21.09.2023, the same was disposed of by the Court in terms of Annexure P-9, by passing the following order:-
“While placing on record communication dated 20th September 2023, issued under the signature of Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that private respondent No.6 namely, Sh.Prikshit, whose selection has been laid challenge in the instant proceedings, stands terminated. Learned Additional Advocate General states that after termination of respondent No.6, petitioner has already joined Govt. Primary School, Chandraini, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh on 30.6.2023. He states that in view of aforesaid development, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings.
2.Having perused the averments contained in the petition, especially relief clause, this Court finds that petitioner was aggrieved on account of selection of respondent No.6 against the post in question. Since respondent No.6 has been already terminated and thereafter petitioner has already joined the services against the post in question, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings.
3.Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous alongwith pending applications, if any. Interim order, if any, is vacated.”
In the backdrop of order dated 21.09.2023, Prikshit, who was respondent No.6 in the said writ petition, filed CMP No.13142 of 2024, praying for recall of order dated 21.09.2023 and the same was disposed of by the Court vide Annexure P-10 order dated 06.08.2024, which reads as under:
“CMP.M No. 1139 of 2024 For the reason stated in the application, same is allowed and delay in filing the accompanying application is condoned. The application is disposed of.
CMP No. 13142 of 2024 By way of present application, prayer has been made by the applicant/respondent No.6 for recalling of order dated 21.9.2023, passed in CWP No. 4151 of 2023, whereby this court, having taken note of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General that after termination of respondent No.6, petitioner has already joined the Government Primary School Chandraini, District Solan, disposed of the petition as having rendered infructuous.
It is averred in the application that on account of passing of order dated 21.9.2023, applicant/respondent No.6, whose services were terminated illegally, has become remediless and on account of order sought to be recalled, he is estopped from filing any proceedings, laying therein challenge to his termination order, however, having perused order dated 21.9.2023, this Court finds no merit in the present application because while passing aforesaid order, this Court has not adjudicated the rights of the parties on merit, rather disposed of the case simply taking note of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General that pursuant to termination of respondent No.6 i.e. applicant herein, non-applicant/petitioner has already joined Government Primary School Chandrainee, District Solan. It is not in dispute that as of today, applicant/respondent No.6 stands terminated, but certainly vide order dated 21.9.2023, which is sought to be recalled in the instant proceedings, this court has not determined the rights of the parties, especially with regard to termination of respondent No.6.
Consequently, in view of the above, present application is disposed of with liberty to applicant/respondent No.6 to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law, laying therein challenge to his termination. The application is disposed of.”
Thereafter, Prikshit has approached this Court by way of CWP No. 11745 of 2024 and in terms of this writ petition, he has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i)That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents quashing the impugned order Annexure P-8 dt 30.06.2023 in the interest of justice.
ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner against the respondents, directing the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner as a multi-task worker in GPS Chandraini, Education Block-Dharampur, Distt. Solan, H.P. in pursuance to the process of recruitment initiated by the respondent department in pursuance to the part time multi task workers policy 2020 in the interest of justice.”
This writ petition was filed on 16.09.2024 and notices were issued to the private respondent therein, namely Smt. Veena Devi on 29.10.2024 and said respondent had put in appearance before the Court on 04.12.2024.
Thereafter, in the month of April, 2026, CWP No. 6572 of 2026 has been filed by Smt. Veena, in which, she has prayed for the following relief:
“(i)That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure P-5), order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P-7).”
Learned Counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 11745 of 2024, titled Prikshit vs. State of H.P. and Others, submitted that the writ petition filed by Smt. Veena against appellate order dated 30.01.2023 was not decided on merit by this Court. He submitted that after Smt. Veena obtained an interim order and on the strength of the said interim order, the services of Prikshit were discharged and Smt. Veena was re-engaged, Smt. Veena chose not to contest the matter any further on merit. He submitted that in light of the fact that this Court, in CWP No. 4151 of 2023, did not return a finding on merit that appellate order dated 30.01.2023 was bad in law, immediately after the disposal of the said writ petition, the appellate order became alive for all intents and purposes and, therefore, as said appellate order has attained finality, engagement of Smt. Veena against the post in issue has to be set aside and petitioner Prikshit has to be offered appointment against the post in issue with all consequential benefits.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in CWP No.6572 of 2026, argued that though the adjudication of the earlier writ filed by Smt. Veena, in the mode and manner in which it was done, is a matter of record and he cannot improve upon that, thereafter, Smt. Veena filed a review petition and the review petition was disposed of by the Court in terms of Annexure P-12, appended with CWP No.6572 of 2026, dated 16.03.2024, granting liberty to Smt.Veena to agitate the issue. He submitted that Smt. Veena cannot be left remediless in the matter and therefore, Smt.Veena has again approached this Court, inter alia, praying for the quashing of impugned appellate order dated 30.01.2023 and also orders dated 21.06.2023, in terms thereof, the services of Smt.Veena were terminated and an offer of appointment was made to Prikshit.
Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in light of the fact that it was a dispute inter alia between the petitioners in both cases, the Government shall abide by the verdict that may be given by the Court in issue.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the contents of both the writ petitions as well as documents appended therewith very carefully.
The pleadings in these writ petitions reveal one fact clearly and categorically that the writ petition which was preferred by Smt.Veena against the appellate order passed by the Authority in the appeal filed by Prikshit against the appointment of Smt.Veena, was not decided by this Court on merit. In fact, what happened is that after the interim order was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petition and in compliance thereto, the services of Prikshit were discharged, in light of said development, the writ petition itself was disposed of on 21.09.2023, in terms of the order, which already stands quoted by me hereinbefore.
When Prikshit approached the Court seeking a recall of the said order, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 06.08.2024, granted liberty to Prikshit to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court, laying challenge to his termination.
On the other hand, after Prikshit had approached this Court in the year 2024 by way of CWP No.11745 of 2024, in which Smt.Veena was made a party, when Smt.Veena probably realized in the year 2026 that indeed there was no adjudication in the earlier writ petition filed by her on merit, she filed CWP No. 6572 of 2026, seeking the quashing of order dated 30.01.2023, i.e. the appellate order, for the quashing whereof Smt. Veena had earlier also approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4151 of 2023.
Not only this, in the review petition which was filed by Smt. Veena against order dated 21.09.2023, passed in CWP No. 4151 of 2023, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench was pleased to hold that there was no error apparent on the face of record compelling said Court to recall its order dated 21.09.2023, more so, as after the termination of the services of Parikshit, Smt. Veena had already joined the post in issue.
This Court is of the considered view that as the earlier writ filed by Smt. Veena, in which she had prayed for the quashing of the appellate order, was disposed of by the Court without any decision on merit and without quashing the impugned order and thereafter, even when the review petition was dismissed, no liberty was granted to Smt.Veena to file a fresh case challenging the impugned appellate order, the present writ petition again seeking the said relief is per se not maintainable at all.
When this particular point was being urged by learned Counsel for Prikshit, learned Counsel for Smt. Veena argued that in these circumstances, Smt. Veena is left remediless. This Court does not concur with the submissions of learned counsel for Smt. Veena, because nothing prevented her from agitating the order passed in her earlier writ petition by way of an appeal, or the order passed in the review petition by way of an appeal. However, Smt. Veena chose not to do so, but has filed this petition again seeking the same and similar relief which was sought by her in the earlier writ petition which writ was disposed of without any adjudication on merits, meaning thereby, without setting aside the impugned order therein. In this backdrop, as obviously the appellate order has now attained finality and as Smt. Veena has no locus to file and maintain a subsequent petition seeking a relief which was claimed by her earlier and not granted to her expressly or impliedly in the earlier petition filed by her, the petition filed by Smt. Veena is hereby dismissed.
On the other hand, as obviously the appellate order passed in favour of Prikshit has now attained finality, in light of the fact that the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench was pleased not to have had returned any finding that the appellate order was bad in law, the continuation on the post in issue of Smt.Veena is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The discharge of Prikshit after the appellate order was passed and earlier the services of Smt. Veena were terminated was only in compliance to an interim order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench and said order also came to an end after the writ petition was disposed of without adjudication on merits. Thereafter, Smt. Veena has no locus to continue to retain the post and her continuation on the said post is held to be bad and a direction is issued to the respondents to forthwith terminate her from the said post and re-engage the petitioner Prikshit against the said post. His engagement shall be construed from the date when he was initially engaged, with all consequential benefits.
with the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.