Mandamus writ granted a bounden obligation to revere the entry in the service book: High Court of Shimla
It was a bounden obligation of the respondents, to revere the entry in the service book of the employ, rather displaying his acquiring matriculation qualification. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Jeet Ram Versus State of H.P. and others [CWPOA No. 7751 of 2019] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. The writ petition was filed petition claiming a mandamus, to be pronounced upon the respondents that he be promoted as Clerk, from the date, when certain juniors to him, in the category of Peons, were accorded promotion to the next higher thereto posts of Clerks. Undisputedly, a 15% quota was reserved for Class-IV employees, for theirs being promoted to the next higher post of Clerk. The writ petitioner was appointed on a compassionate basis, in the year 1998, and at the afore stage, he did not possess the matriculation certificate. He, though, acquired the matriculation qualification in October, 2003. However, it was apparent on a reading of reply, to the writ petition, as, instituted by the respondents, that in the year 2003, the fact of the writ petitioner, possessing the matriculation qualification, became entered in his service records. Even though, the writ petitioner was, on the strength of the afore entry, entitled to secure an appropriate place in the seniority list, maintained by the respondents, with respect to the category of Class-IV employees, yet the respondent erred in ignoring the afore factum, and, also consequently, erred in including, for the relevant purpose, rather his name in the seniority list of Class-IV employees. The learned Additional Advocate General had strived that, “to validate the afore flaws, on the ground, that the writ petitioner, belatedly, in 2015, made a challenge to the seniority list, as became drawn earlier thereto. However, the afore argument, cannot succeed, as it was a bounden obligation of the respondents, to revere the entry in the service book of the petitioner, rather displaying his acquiring matriculation qualification, in the year 2003. The effect of overlooking of the afore, had definitely brought the ill-sequel of the rights of the petitioner, to be considered, for promotion, to the next higher post of Clerk, especially in the year 2013, becoming completely jeopardized.”
 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 06 04 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No. 77519 Decided on : 6.4.2021 Jeet Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur Judge. Whether approved for reporting yes ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Maan Singh Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashwani Sharma & Mr. Hemant Vaid Addl. AGs with Mr. Vikrant Chandel Dy. A.G. Sureshwar Thakur JudgeThe writ petitioner claims a mandamus being pronounced upon the respondents that he be promoted as Clerk from the date when certain juniors to him in the category of Peons were accorded promotion to the next higher thereto post(s) of Clerk(s). 2. Undisputedly a 15% quota is reserved for Class IV employees for theirs being promoted to the next higher Hig h C o urt of H.P on 06 04 HCHP 22post of Clerk. The writ petitioner was appointed on an compassionate basis in the year 1998 and at the afore stage he did not possess the matriculation certificate. He though acquired the matriculation qualification in October 2003. However it is apparent on a reading of reply to the writ petition as instituted by the respondents that in the year 2003 the fact of the writ petitioner possessing the matriculation qualification became entered in his service records. Even though the writ petitioner was on the strength of the afore entry entitled to secure an appropriate place in the seniority list maintained by the respondents with respect to the category of Class IV employees yet the respondent erred in ignoring the afore factum and also consequently erred in including for the relevant purpose rather his name in the seniority list of Class IV employees. The sequel of the afore flaws hence committed by the respondents is that his name did not occur for the relevant purpose in the seniority list of Class IV employees and also hence despite the writ petitioner possessing the requisite educational qualification his name became reckoned for promotion to the next higher post of Clerk. Hig h C o urt of H.P on 06 04 HCHP 333. The learned Additional Advocate General has strived to validate the afore flaws on the ground that the writ petitioner belatedly in 2015 made a challenge to the seniority list as became drawn earlier thereto. However the afore argument cannot succeed as it was a bounden obligation of the respondents to revere the entry in the service book of the petitioner rather displaying his acquiring matriculation qualification in the year 2003. The effect of overlooking(s) of the afore has definitely brought the ill sequel of the rights of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of Clerk especially in the year 2013 becoming completely jeopardized. 4. The afore prejudice caused to the writ petitioner is required to be undone and the respondents are directed to after affording an opportunity to all the interested persons re draw the seniority list of Class IV employees from the year 2003 and in case the respondents concerned comes to a conclusion that the writ petitioner occupies a place higher than those persons who became promoted to the post of Clerk ensure that against one of such juniors to the writ Hig h C o urt of H.P on 06 04 HCHP 44petitioner the writ petitioner becomes appointed as a Clerk alongwith all consequential benefits. 5. In view of above the writ petition is allowed. Also the pending application(s) if any are also disposed of. No costs. Judge 6.4.2021 Kalpana 