Vishal vs State Of H.P And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The projected case of the petitioner is that on 10.12.2021, vide Annexure P-6 respondent No. 3 (H.P. State Electronics Development Corporation

Limited) recommended his name as an outsource employee to respondent No. 2. On 13.12.2021, he joined against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil),

Palampur, falling under Urban Development Department i.e. respondent No. 2. However, vide Annexure P-8, dated 07.02.2022 respondent No. 2 has

ordered for his removal and someone else has been appointed in his place. Petitioner prays for following reliefs:-

“i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the impugned notification dated 07.02.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside

and further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in the interest of justice and fair play.

ii) That the respondent is directed to release all the consequential benefits from the due date.â€​

On being put to notice, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. The gist of

these instructions is that respondent No. 2 had sent two requisitions to respondent No 3 i.e. dated 8.11.2021 and 12.11.2021 for providing 13 Nos.

Junior Engineers and 13 Nos. Sanitary Supervisors on outsource basis to be deployed in various Urban Local Bodies in the State. The copies of

requisitions have been appended alongwith the instructions. It has further been submitted that respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 03.02.2022 forwarded

list of selected candidates for approval to respondent No. 2. This list was approved by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-8, dated 7. 02.2022.

It has further been submitted that the name of the petitioner was never sent by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2. That Annexure P-6 placed

on record by the petitioner was never received by respondent No. 2. The list of the suitable candidates selected by respondent No. 3 for manpower

deployment on outsource basis in Urban Local Bodies sent to respondent No. 2 on 3.2.2022 has also been made part of the instructions. Name of the

petitioner does not figure in this list under the category of Junior Engineers. Respondent No. 2 has also stated that as per information received from

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Palampur (respondent No. 4), the petitioner had submitted a joining report as a Junior Engineer. However, the

joining was never accepted since it was without offer appointment by the outsource agency.

In view of the above instructions, it is apparent that the Outsource Agency had not offered appointment to the petitioner. His name was neither in the

list of candidates received by respondent No. 2 nor his name was approved for appointment by respondent No. 2. Accordingly, I find no merit in the

instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.