Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3854 (HP)

Anjana Kumari v. State of H. P.

2025-10-07

Satyen Vaidya

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. All these petitions have been heard and are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. Brief background facts are as under:- (a) The Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes (for short “the Commission”) invited applications from all eligible candidates for one post of Research Officer in the pay band of Rs.10,300-34,800 +5000 G.P. vide advertisement dated 26.08.2016. (b) The eligibility was restricted to the desirous government servants who were holding substantive/officiating/contractual  employment  in H.P. Government or in High Court or any Court subordinate thereto and employees of Public Sector undertakings/Corporation/organization substantially owned and controlled by the Himachal Pradesh government. The candidates were required to have essential qualification of Master’s Degree in Economics with at least 55% aggregate from a University  recognized  by  the  Himachal  Pradesh government and should have studied Research methodology quantitative techniques and population studies. (c) In response to above noted advertisement, two candidates submitted their applications. One of them i.e. Ms. Pratibha Thakur is the petitioner in CWPOA No. 109 of 2019 and another Ms. Anjana Kumari is the petitioner in CWPOA No. 87 of 2019. Both of them hereafter, for the sake of clarity and convenience, shall be referred to by their respective names whenever the context requires. (d) The interview was held on 24.09.2016. Ms. Anjana Kumari approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on 12.12.2016 by way of Original Application No.1356 of 2017 making prayer for following reliefs: “i) That the impugned direction dated 26.09.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 to order for inviting fresh applications for the post of Research Officer without declaring the result of the interviews held on 24.09.2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside as contained on the last page of Annexure A-6 after summoning the entire record and further the respondents No.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to declare the result of interviews conducted on 24.09.2016 for the sanctioned post of Research  Officer  by  duly  constituted selection board and in case, the name of the applicant has been recommended for the ibid post, the respondents No.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to offer the appointment to the applicant as Research Officer with all consequential benefits and justice be done.” (e) In the Original Application filed by Ms. Anjana Kumari, it was averred inter-alia that despite conduct of interview on 24.09.2016, the result had not been declared and to the knowledge of original applicant derived from information received under the RTI Act, the reason for non-declaration of result was a decision taken by the Commission to invite fresh applications from open market. (f) Ms. Pratibha Thakur filed M.A. No. 52 of 2016 in O.A. No. 6829 of 2016 for her impleadment as party respondent. However, O.A. No. 6829 of 2016 was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 29.03.2017 on the representation of the Commission that it was prepared to declare the result. (g) Thereafter Pratibha Thakur filed Original Application No. 1356 of 2017 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The date of institution of said original application was 06.04.2017. The Original Application No. 1356 of 2017 later came to be transferred to this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and is one of the petitions i.e. CWPOA No.109 of 2019 being decided by this judgment. (h) In O.A. No.1356 of 2017 (CWPOA No. 109 of 2009), the following prayers have been made: - (i) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that respondent No.4 may very kindly be directed to reject the candidature of respondent No.5, for the post of Research Officer and further may also very kindly be directed not to offer appointment to her and in case, during the period of filing of petition and the listing of the same before this Hon’ble Tribunal, it is issued, the same may very kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice and law, by calling back the order of respondent No.5 from the respondents. ii) Respondent No.4 may very kindly be directed to issue appointment order for the post of Research Officer in favour of present applicant, being the only eligible candidate in view of their decision and in the interest of justice and law.” (i) As per the averments made in O.A. No. 1356 of 2017 (CWPOA No. 109 of 2019), the grievance of Ms. Pratibha Thakur, was with respect to consideration of candidature of Anjana Kumari, who was alleged to be ineligible. It was submitted that Ms. Pratibha Thakur, was with respect to consideration of candidature of Anjana Kumari, who was alleged to be ineligible. It was submitted that Ms. Anjana Kumari did not fulfill the requisite qualification as she was not holding any substantive/officiating/contractual post in government department and also was not the employee of any public sector undertaking/ corporation/organization  substantially  owned  and controlled by the government of Himachal Pradesh. It has further been asserted that Ms. Anjana Kumari was appointed as Coordinate (Gender) in the State Sports Center, under Panchayati Mahila and Yuva Sashakti Abhiyaan, a project sponsored by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India. (j) Ms. Pratibha Thakur also pointed out that she, on the other hand, had been appointed after passing of competitive examination conducted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and at the time of submission of her application for the post of Research Officer in the Commission she was working in the Office of District & Sessions Judge, Solan. Her application is also stated to have been forwarded through proper channel. (k) Further case of Ms. Pratibha Thakur is that when the result was not declared after interview held on 24.09.2016, it had become known that the Chairman of the Commission had taken a decision to cancel the entire process more particularly for the reason that only two applications were there. Thus, it had been decided to re-advertise the post by inviting applications not only from the government servants but also from the open market and before that requirement of framing of recruitment and promotion rules had also been desired. (l)   O.A. No. 1356 of 2017 (CWPOA No. 109 of 2019) filed by Ms. Pratibha Thakur was listed before the learned Tribunal on 10.04.2017. By way of interim order, direction was issued to maintain status quo qua the appointment to the post of Research Officer in the Commission. Nonetheless, on 11.04.2017, the appointment letter for the post of Research Officer in the Commission was issued appointing Ms. Anjana Kumari to the said post. In pursuance thereto, Ms. Anjana Kumari joined the Commission as Research Officer on 12.04.2017. In this backdrop, Ms. Pratibha Thakur filed COPCT No. 212 of 2020. On 30.11.2018, learned Tribunal issued directions in COPCT No. 212 of 2020 in following terms: - “4. Anjana Kumari to the said post. In pursuance thereto, Ms. Anjana Kumari joined the Commission as Research Officer on 12.04.2017. In this backdrop, Ms. Pratibha Thakur filed COPCT No. 212 of 2020. On 30.11.2018, learned Tribunal issued directions in COPCT No. 212 of 2020 in following terms: - “4. It is also directed that before respondent No.2 is heard further in the matter, he is directed to purge himself of the contempt of which he has already been, prima facie, found to be guilty. ” (m) Noticeably, respondent No.2 as impleaded in the contempt petition was Mr. Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Member Secretary/Special Secretary of the Commission. (n) Order dated 24.12.2018 came to be issued under the signatures of Joint Secretary of the Commission in following terms:- “Office Order In compliance of order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the H.P. Administrative Tribunal Shimla-1, in the Cont. Pet. 117/2017 in O.A. No. 1356/2017 in the matter of Pratibha Thakur, w/o Sh. Surinder Kumar, R/O Village and P.O. Chaily, Summerhill Shimla- 171005, H.P. vs. State of H.P. & others as well as approval of the Government of HP Department of Social Justice & Empowerment (B) of letter NO. SJE-B-E(3)-1/2017 dated 14.12.2018 and 17.12.2018, the services of Smt. Anjana Kumar as Research Officer in Backward Classes Commission is hereby terminated with immediate effect. Sd/- Joint Secretary H.P. State Commission for Backward Classes Kasumpti Shimla-171009” (n) Aggrieved against the office order dated 24.12.2018, Ms. Anjana Kumari again approached the learned Tribunal by filing M.A. No. 3161 of 2018 in O.A. no. 1356 of 2017. However, she failed to secure any favourable order in the interim. Learned Tribunal had sought the reply from the non- applicants in O.A. No. 3161 of 2018. Ms. Anjana Kumari then approached this Court by way of CWP No. 5 of 2019 against the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby interim relief had been refused, but again could not succeed and the CWP No. 5 of 2019 was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.01.2019 with direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter on merits. Thereafter, Ms. Anjana Kumari withdrew M.A. No. 3161 of 2018 with liberty to avail appropriate remedy and consequently came up with O.A. No. 931 of 2019 which is now being decided by this Court as CWPOA No. 87 of 2019. 3. Thereafter, Ms. Anjana Kumari withdrew M.A. No. 3161 of 2018 with liberty to avail appropriate remedy and consequently came up with O.A. No. 931 of 2019 which is now being decided by this Court as CWPOA No. 87 of 2019. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 4. At the outset, it will be relevant to notice the stand taken by the Commission. In the case of Ms. Anjana Kumari, the Commission has supported the stand as taken by the Ms. Pratibha Thakur in her petition. It has been submitted that Ms. Anjana Kumari was not eligible for the post of Research Officer in the Commission as advertised vide advertisement dated 26.08.2016. As per Commission, Ms. Anjana Kumari was engaged in the Society under the Central sponsored project “Mahila and Yuva Sashakti Abhiyaan” of Panchayati Raj department by the Principal, Panchayati Raj Training Institute Mashobra, who was also the Member Secretary of said society. The said society had been closed. Ms. Anjana Kumari was not being paid any emoluments after closure of society. It was only under the orders of Court that she was marking her attendance in the office without any remuneration as this Court had not passed any order in that behalf, rather it had been observed that she would be paid remunerations, if were made available by the Central Government under the project. 5. The Commission has further submitted that the learned Tribunal while passing order dated 24.03.2017 in O.A. No.6829 of 2016 had directed the competent authority to do the needful. The competent authority was the Chairman and since at that time the Commission did not have the Chairman, the decision to appoint Ms. Anjana Kumari was wrongfully taken without an authority in that behalf. 6. The Commission has also highlighted that after conduct of interviews on 24.09.2016, when the file was placed before the then Chairman of the Commission, he had observed in writing that since only two applications had been received, it was desirable that fresh applications be invited not only from the persons serving in government departments but also from the open market and before that recruitment and promotion rules were required to be framed and approved. The then Member Secretary of the Commission is also been alleged to have acted in defiance to aforesaid directions of the then Chairman of the Commission. The meeting of the Commission held on 10.04.2017 is stated to have been attended only by two nominated member and Member Secretary without Chairman and in that meeting the decision to appoint Ms. Anjana Kumari was unauthorizedly taken. 7. The fact as has emerged, from the pleadings in all the petitions under consideration as also the documents filed therein, is that the appointment of Ms. Anjana Kumari on 11.04.2017 was in violation of specific order passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on 10.04.2017 in O.A. No. 1356 of 2017. 8. Ms. Anjana Kumari has challenged her order of termination and it has been contended on her behalf that the  termination  order  had  not  been  issued  by  the competent authority. According to Ms. Anjana Kumari, the termination could have been ordered by the Commission itself whereas it was issued under the signatures of an officer of Commission. It has further been contended that termination order is without any reason. Violation of principles of natural justice have also been alleged. It is submitted that petitioner Ms. Anjana Kumari was not afforded even bare minimum opportunity of being heard before the passing of order of termination. Another ground that has been raised is that instead of terminating services of petitioner Ms. Anjana Kumari, her appointment could have been kept in abeyance in view of the pendency of O.A. No.1356 of 2017. 9. In the given facts of the case, petitioner Ms. Anjana Kumari cannot be heard to lay challenge to office order dated 24.12.2017 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It cannot be presumed that Ms. Anjana Kumari was unaware about the proceedings in O.A. No. 1356 of 2017 or COPCT No. 212 of 2020. Her termination had come into effect after about 8 months, when the order dated 10.04.2017 had allegedly come to the notice of the Commission. As per the reply filed by the then Member Secretary of the Commission, Ms. Anjana Kumari had joined in the forenoon on 12.04.2017 and the order dated 10.04.2017 had been received in the Commission immediately thereafter. Since, the appointment of Ms. As per the reply filed by the then Member Secretary of the Commission, Ms. Anjana Kumari had joined in the forenoon on 12.04.2017 and the order dated 10.04.2017 had been received in the Commission immediately thereafter. Since, the appointment of Ms. Anjana Kumari was in violation of the specific restraint order, it had to be considered void ab initio and for such reason no fault can be found with the termination order dated 24.12.2017. Additionally, it also cannot be ignored that Commission had issued office order dated 24.12.2017 to purge itself of the contempt. 10. Undeniably, the Chairman of the Commission had refused to approve the selection made in pursuance to advertisement dated 26.08.2016 for the reasons, firstly, that the field of eligible candidates was restricted to serving government servants only and secondly, it would be appropriate to make appointment after framing of recruitment and promotion rules. A specific note to this effect was put on the relevant file by the Chairman on 26.09.2016. Another office note authored by the then Chairman is found on the relevant file having been appended on 02.12.2016 whereby the Chairman had shown his displeasure regarding the working of the then Member Secretary. He had observed that the Member Secretary was acting in defiance to the directives of Chairman and decisions were being allegedly taken by him without placing the files before the Chairman. Similarly, displeasure was also expressed with respect to steps having not been taken for framing of fresh recruitment and promotion rules to the post of Research Officer in the Commission. 11. Another fact as pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate representing petitioner Ms. Pratibha Thakur is that the Chairman ceased to occupy the office w.e.f. 12.12.2016 and this fact has not been denied or refuted by other parties in all the cases. Thus, what becomes evident is that subsequent decision to appoint Ms. Anjana Kumari as Research Officer was taken at a time when the Commission was without Chairman. 12. As per the stand of the Commission, the Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes Orders, 1993 were issued vide notification dated 30.09.1993 by the Welfare department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. As per this order, the Chairman was a necessary constituent of the Commission. 12. As per the stand of the Commission, the Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes Orders, 1993 were issued vide notification dated 30.09.1993 by the Welfare department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. As per this order, the Chairman was a necessary constituent of the Commission. Reliance has also been placed on communication issued by Commissioner-cum- Secretary Welfare on 19th March, 1994, whereby the Chairman of the Commission was authorized to appoint the officers and employees of the Commission. The same stand has been endorsed by Ms. Pratibha Thakur and on its strength, it has been argued that the decision to appoint petitioner Ms. Anjana Kumari was not by the body having authority to do so. 13. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate representing petitioner Ms. Anjana Kumari has placed reliance on Clause-7 of above noted 1993 orders which reads as under: - “7. Vacancies, etc. not to invalidate proceedings of the Commission. No. Act or proceeding of the Commission shall be invalid on the ground merely of the existence of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Commission.” 14. As  regards,  the  fact  whether  petitioner  Ms. Anjana Kumari was eligible or not, this question has never appeared before the Commission before offering her appointment. Thus, the Commission had no opportunity to consider such fact. 15. An objection has been taken with respect to maintainability of the petition by Ms. Pratibha Thakur. It has been contended that after having participated in the selection process without any objection, she cannot be allowed to turn around to challenge the same selection process. However, the objection so raised deserves rejection for the reasons that Ms. Pratibha Thakur has not challenged the selection process as such, rather she has highlighted the fact that Ms. Anjana Kumari did not have requisite eligibility and as such consideration of her candidature was bad. There is nothing on record to suggest that Ms. Pratibha Thakur was aware about the alleged ineligibility of Ms. Anjana Thakur even before participating in the selection process i.e. submission of her application and also appearance before the selection committee. 16. The next ground of attack by Ms. Pratibha Thakur is mode and manner in which the selection of Ms. Anjana Kumari was held. Thus, the petition of Ms. Pratibha Thakur cannot be said to be not maintainable. 17. Anjana Thakur even before participating in the selection process i.e. submission of her application and also appearance before the selection committee. 16. The next ground of attack by Ms. Pratibha Thakur is mode and manner in which the selection of Ms. Anjana Kumari was held. Thus, the petition of Ms. Pratibha Thakur cannot be said to be not maintainable. 17. Another aspect which cannot be ignored is that in the meeting of Commission dated 10.04.2017, there did not appear to be deliberations and considerations on the aspect of selection to be made after framing of proper recruitment and promotion rules for the post of Research Officer. Such a proposal mooted by Chairman could not be said to be unreasonable or unjustified by any stretch of imagination. Such a proposal was completely in conformity with the basic tenets of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The matters relating to appointment in public service are required to adhere strictly to the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 18. In light of above discussion, CWPOA No. 87 of 2019 is dismissed. Prayer (i) made in CWPOA No. 109 of 2019 is rendered infructuous and inconsequential as a result of dismissal of CWPOA No. 87 of 2019. As regards prayer (ii) in CWPOA NO. 109 of 2019, the same is also rejected for the reason that selection process has not been found to have been conducted adhering to the precepts of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 19. Both the petitions i.e. CWPOA No. 87 of 2019 and CWPOA No. 109 of 2019 are accordingly disposed of. 20. Keeping in view the long pendency of matter and also the observations made while deciding CWPOA Nos. 87 and 109 of 2019, the proceedings in COPCT 212 of 2020 against the respondents is also ordered to be dropped and the said petition is also disposed of accordingly.