Suresh Kumar vs State of H.P.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral)—Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, (2007) 8 SCC 785.

We have gone through the judgment supra, which applies to the facts of the instant case, but the question is as to which incumbent is to be shown the door.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that the private respondents, in the Letters Patent Appeal, are in place for the last about five years and by now, they have earned status in the society. It was also stated that the families of the respondents are dependant upon them.

It was further stated that the private respondents were appointed by the Government on the basis of the selection process undertaken by the Selection Authority and in their selection and appointment, they had no role to play. Therefore, it would be too severe and harsh, at this stage, to dislodge any of the private respondents. Their statements are taken on record.

Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No.6, relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment in case Abhay Kumar Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 1 SCC 90.

Keeping in view judgments supra and all other factors, the impugned judgment is set aside and the respondents/competent Authority is directed to give appointment to the appellant, on notional basis, from the date the private respondents were appointed, within a period of six weeks from today. To clarify further, the appellant will be entitled to actual monetary benefits from the date of his joining. It is also made clear that this order has been made in the given circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as precedent.

The Letters Patent Appeal and the writ petition stand disposed of accordingly, so also the pending CMPs, if any. Copy dasti.