CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 02 SHI CK 0012

Vijay Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 6 February 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sushil Kukreja, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 428 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 377 words

Sushil Kukreja, J

1.

Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following substantive reliefs:­

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P­1, i.e. Impugned office order dated 16.01.2023.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner continue at Haroli, Education Block Haroli, District Una, in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2.

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as JBT on regular basis w.e.f. 07.06.1999 and was posted at GPS Padoga (boys) and thereafter he served at different stations of the District, being District cadre post. The petitioner had applied for the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator (BRCC) after fulfilling the criteria as per the Policy or guideline. The Selection Committee has recommended the name of the petitioner and vide Office Order dated 16.11.2018, he was appointed as BRCC at GPS Lalhari Education Block Haroli, District Una, H.P. and thereafter remained posted at the same place till date. However, vide impugned Office Order dated 16. 01.2023 (Annexure P­1), the petitioner was repatriated and posted against the vacant post of JBT at GPS, Band Bakshi, Education Block Gagret­II, District Una without, TTA/JT whereas, he had never made any such request to the authority and the same had been done at the behest of respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 had been posted in place of the petitioner in an illegal manner, without there being any public interest. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he is surrounded with adverse family circumstances, as his mother and one of his brothers are bedridden.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied if he is permitted to file a representation before respondent No. 2 and if the same is decided in a time bound manner.

4.

Accordingly, without adverting to the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the representation, to be filed by the petitioner within two days from today and decide the same within a period of one week thereafter, strictly in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.