Sansar Singh Dhiman vs Additional Chief Secretary (Ayurveda) And Another

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following reliefs:-

“(a). That the impugned order dated 10/05/2018 (Annexure-A/8) may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice.

(b) That the respondents-department may kindly be directed to give notional benefit to the applicant w.e.f. 1999 or 2000 from that date for which the applicant is entitled.

(c) That the respondents-department may kindly be directed to count the period w.e.f. 1999 till date of appointment for regularization and pension benefit.

(d) That the respondents- department may kindly be directed to release the pension to the applicant. Whereas, the applicant was eligible.”

It is not in dispute that on 26.02.2005, permission to fill up 85 posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers was accorded by the State Government. Accordingly, respondent No.2 sent requisitions to all concerned for filling up the posts. Notice in the newspaper was also published. Selection process was completed. But before letters of appointment could be issued to the successful candidates, entire selection process was cancelled by the Government. Consequently, fresh steps for filling up vacant posts were taken somewhere in the month of December, 2008. It is thereafter on 07.01.2009 that the Government took a decision to uniformly relax the condition of maximum age of the candidates as stipulated in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

The petitioner could not be considered for appointment on batch wise basis for the simple reason that as on 07.01.2009, he was more than 50 years of age. It is only by virtue of relaxation of age as stipulated in the Notification dated 07.01.2009, the petitioner came to be appointed by the intervention of this Court, as per directions passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 6932 of 2008 in case titled as Sansar Singh Dhiman vs. State of H.P and others, decided on 20th October, 2010.

In the given facts and circumstances, we fail to understand as to how the petitioner would claim his right of appointment with notional effect from 1999 or 2000, that too, solely on the basis of eligibility, given the fact that these appointments were to be made on the batch wise basis.

It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not offered appointment as per his batch. Clearly, in such circumstances, the instant petition is mis-conceived and is accordingly dismissed, along-with pending applications, if any.