id
large_stringlengths 24
36
| dataset_name
large_stringclasses 6
values | text
large_stringlengths 318
1.74M
|
|---|---|---|
65c4475d118495003898480a | blog | States and State LegislaturesAssembly elections 2012 - Trends of the last 25 yearsRohit- January 24, 2012Over the next few weeks, Assembly elections are scheduled to be held in five States – Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Manipur and Goa. As parties prepare for the upcoming elections, we take a look at the electoral trends in these states over the past 25 years. We see that electoral fortunes in some states have fluctuated widely. The electoral mandate in UP has varied over the last 25 years. Five different parties -- Congress, Janata Dal, BJP, SP and BSP have been the single largest party in the Assembly at some point in time. In Punjab, the Akalis and the Congress have alternately controlled the government. In Uttarakhand, the 2007 elections saw the BJP take over control from the Congress. In Manipur and Goa, Congress has been dominant player in elections. In both states, it emerged as the single largest party in all but one election since 1984. In Manipur, the Congress lost this status to the Manipur State Congress Party (MSCP), a splinter group of the Congress in 2000. In Goa, it lost this status to BJP in 2002. The results of Uttar Pradesh elections will have the highest impact on national politics. The state has 80 out of 543 elected seats in Lok Sabha and 31 out of 231 elected seats in Rajya Sabha. The results could give an indication of the prospects for these parties in the next general elections, and may also change the composition of Rajya Sabha over the next few years. Given that there are five parties (BSP, SP, BJP, Congress and RLD) with a significant base in the state, the possibilities of post poll arrangements are also wide open. For more details, see ourVital Stats.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c447b51184950038984860 | blog | LegislationIssues related to MCI - how to regulate medical colleges and doctors?Rohit- August 17, 2010The Medical Council of India (MCI) has seen a few major controversies over the past decade. In the latest incident, MCI President, Dr. Ketan Desai was arrested by the CBI on charges of accepting a bribe for granting recognition to Gyan Sagar Medical College in Punjab. Following this incident, the central government promulgated an ordinance dissolving the MCI and replacing it with a centrally nominated seven member board. The ordinance requires MCI to be re-constituted within one year of its dissolution in accordance with the provisions of the original Act.BackgroundThe Medical Council of India was first established in 1934 under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933. This Act was repealed and replaced with a new Act in 1956. Under the 1956 Act, the objectives of MCI include:Maintenance of standards in medical education through curriculum guidelines, inspections and permissions to start colleges, courses or increasing number of seatsRecognition of medical qualificationsRegistration of doctors and maintenance of the All India Medical RegisterRegulation of the medical profession by prescribing a code of conduct and taking action against erring doctorsOver the years, several committees, the most recent being the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) and the Yashpal Committee, have commented on the need for reforms in medical regulation in the country. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW) has recently released a draft of the National Council for Human Resources in Health (NCHRH) Bill for public feedback.(See http://mohfw.nic.in/nchrc-health.htm)Key issues in Medical RegulationOversightCurrently, separate regulatory bodies oversee the different healthcare disciplines. These include the Medical Council of India, the Indian Nursing Council, the Dental Council of India, the Rehabilitation Council of India and the Pharmacy Council of India. Each Council regulates both education and professional practice within its domain. The draft NCHRH Bill proposes to create an overarching body to subsume these councils into a single structure. This new body, christened the National Council for Human Resources in Health (NCHRH) is expected to encourage cross connectivity across these different health-care disciplines.Role of CouncilsBoth the NKC and the Yashpal Committee make a case for separating regulation of medical education from that of profession. It is recommended that the current councils be divested of their education responsibilities and that these work solely towards regulation of professionals – prescribing a code of ethics, ensuring compliance, and facilitating continued medical education. In addition, it has been recommended that a national exit level examination be conducted. This exit examination should then serve the purpose of ‘occupational licensing’, unlike the prevalent registration system that automatically grants practice rights to graduating professionals. In effect, it is envisaged that the system be reconfigured on the lines of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, wherein the council restricts itself to regulating the profession, but has an indirect say in education through its requirements on the exit examination. A common national examination is also expected to ensure uniformity in quality across the country. Both committees also recommend enlisting independent accrediting agencies for periodically evaluating medical colleges on pre-defined criteria and making this information available to the public (including students). This is expected to bring more transparency into the system.Supervision of education – HRD vs. H&FWThe Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD) is proposing a National Council for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) to regulate all university education. However, MoH&FW is of the opinion that Medical Education is a specialized field and needs focused attention, and hence should be regulated separately. However, it is worth noting that both the NKC and the Yashpal Committee recommend transferring education overseeing responsibilities to the NCHER. Internationally, different models exist across countries. In the US, the Higher Education Act, 1965 had transferred all education responsibilities to the Department of Education. In the UK, both medical education and profession continue to be regulated by the General Medical Council (the MCI counterpart), which is different from the regulator for Higher Education.Composition of CouncilsIn 2007-08, MCI, when fully constituted, was a 129 member body. The Ministry in its draft NCHRH Bill makes a case for reducing this size. The argument advanced is that such a large size makes the council unwieldy in character and hence constrains reform. In 2007-08, 71% of the members in the committee were elected. These represented universities and doctors registered across the country. However, the Standing Committee on H&FW report (2006) points out that delays in conducting elections usually leads to several vacancies in this category, thereby reducing the actual percentage of elected members. MCI’s 2007-08 annual report mentions that at the time of publishing the report, 29 seats (32% of elected category) were vacant due to ‘various reasons like expiry of term, non-election of a member, non-existence of medical faculty of certain Universities’. In November 2001, the Delhi High Court set aside the election of Dr. Ketan Desai as President of the MCI, stating that he had been elected under a ‘flawed constitution’. The central government had failed to ensure timely conduct of elections to the MCI. As a result, a number of seats were lying vacant. The Court ordered that the MCI be reconstituted at the earliest and appointed an administrator to oversee the functioning of the MCI until this was done. Several countries like the UK are amending their laws to make council membership more broad-based by including ‘lay-members’/ non-doctors. The General Medical Council in the UK was recently reconstituted and it now comprises of 24 members - 12 ‘lay’ and 12 medical members.(See http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/council.asp)Way aheadAccording to latest news reports, the MoH&FW is currently revising the draft Bill. Let's wait and see how the actual legislation shapes up. Watch this space for further updates!ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c446d91184950038984787 | blog | PolicyDoing Business in IndiaVatsal Khullar- November 1, 2017‘Ease of doing business’ refers to the regulatory environment in a country to set up and operate a business. Every year, the World Bank compares the business environment in 190 countries in its Ease of Doing Business Report. In its report released yesterday, India’s rank improved to 100 out of 190 countries in 2017, from its rank of 130 in the previous year.[1],[2]In this context, we explain the parameters on which each country is ranked, what has led to India’s improvement in rankings, and some recommendations made by committees to further improve the business environment in the country.What parameters is a country ranked on?The ease of doing business rankings are based on a country’s performance on 10 parameters such as enforcing contracts and starting a business. In India, these rankings are based on the business environment in Mumbai and Delhi. A lower rank indicates better performance on that parameter, whereas a higher rank indicates worse performance on the indicator. India’s ranking improved in six out of the 10 parameters over the previous year, while it remained the same or fell in the remaining four (see Table 1).Note that these parameters are regulated by different agencies across the three tiers of government (i.e. central, state and municipal). For example, for starting a business, registration and other clearances are granted by central ministries such as Finance and Corporate Affairs. Electricity and water connections for a business are granted by the state electricity and water boards. The municipal corporations grant building permits and various other no objection certificates to businesses.What has led to an improvement in India’s ease of doing business rankings?According to the 2017 report, India introduced changes in some of these parameters, which helped in improving its ranking.1Some of these changes include:Starting a business:Starting a business involves obtaining clearances, and conforming to various regulations under laws such as Companies Act, 2013. The report noted that India merged the application procedure for getting a Permanent Account Number (PAN) and the Tax Account Number (TAN) for new businesses. It also improved the online application system for getting a PAN and a TAN.Getting credit and resolving insolvency:The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code passed in 2016 provides for a 180-day time-bound process to resolve insolvency.[3]It also provides for the continuation of a debtor’s business during these proceedings. The Code allows secured creditors to opt out of resolution proceedings, and specifies that a debtor will be immune against creditor claims during the 180-day insolvency resolution process. Prior to the passage of the Code, it took 4.3 years in India to liquidate a business (as of 2015).Paying taxes:The report notes that India made paying taxes easier by requiring that payments to the Employees Provident Fund are made electronically.[4]Further, it introduced measures to ease compliance with corporate income tax.1,[5]Trading across borders:Import border compliance at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Mumbai was reduced. Export and Import costs were also reduced through increasing use of electronic and mobile platforms, among others.Enforcing contracts:The introduction of the National Judicial Data Grid has made it possible to generate case management reports on local courts.[6]What are some of the other recommendations to improve the business environment in India?Over the last few years various committees, such as an Expert Committee constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion and the Standing Committee of Commerce, have studied the the regulatory requirements for starting a business in India and the made recommendations on the ease of doing business.[7],[8],[9]Some of the issues and recommendations made by these committees are discussed below.Starting a business:The Standing Committee observed that regulations and procedures for starting a business are time-consuming.8The Committee observed that as a consequence, a large number of start-ups are moving out of India and setting base in countries like Singapore where such procedures are easier. It emphasised on the need to streamline regulations to give businesses in India a boost. Note that the government announced the ‘Start-up India Action Plan in January 2016.[10]The 19-point plan identified steps to simplify the process for registering and operating start-ups. It also proposed to grant tax exemptions to these businesses.The Committee had suggested that the procedures and time period for registration of companies should be reduced. In addition, a unique business ID should be created to integrate all information related to a debtor. This ID should be used as sole reference for the business.Acquiring land, registering property:Under the current legal framework there are delays in acquiring land and getting necessary permissions to use it. These delays are on account of multiple reasons including the availability of suitable land and disputes related to land titles. It has beennotedthat land titles in India are unclear due to various reasons including legacy of the zamindari system, gaps in the legal framework and poor administration of land records.[11]The Standing Committee observed that the process of updating and digitising land records has been going on for three decades. It recommended that this process should be completed at the earliest. The digitised records would assist in removing ambiguity in land titles and help in its smooth transfer. It also suggested that land ownership may be ascertained by integrating space technology and identification documents such as Aadhaar. Note that as of September 2017, land records had been linked with Aadhaar in 4% of the villages across the country.[11]Several states have taken steps to improve regulations related to land and transfer of property.8These steps include integration of land records and land registration by Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, and the passage of a law to certify land titles in urban areas by Rajasthan. The Committee also recommended creating a single window for registration of property, to reduce delays.8Construction permits:In India, obtaining construction permits involves multiple procedures and is time consuming. The Standing Committee had observed that it took 33 procedures (such as getting no objection certificates from individual departments) over 192 days to obtain a construction permit in India.8On the other hand, obtaining a similar permit in Singapore involved 10 procedures and took 26 days.Taxation:The Standing Committee had noted that the tax administration in India was complex, and arbitration proceedings were time-consuming. It observed that the controversies on the Minimum Alternate Tax on capital gains and the tax disputes with companies like Vodafone and Shell had harmed India’s image on taxation matters. Such policy uncertainty and tax disputes have made foreign companies hesitant to do business in India.8The Committee observed that for ‘Make in India’ to succeed, there is a need for a fair, judicious and stable tax administration in the country. Further, it suggested that to reduce harassment of tax payers, an electronic tax administration system should be created.8Such a system would reduce human interface during dispute resolution. Note that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced across the country from July 1, 2017. The GST framework allows for electronic filling of tax returns, among other measures.[12]Enforcing contracts:Enforcing contracts requires the involvement of the judicial system. The time taken to enforce contracts in India is long. For instance, the Standing Committee noted that it took close to four years in India for enforcing contracts. On the other hand, it took less than six months for contract enforcement in Singapore. This may be due to various reasons including complex litigation procedures, confusion related to jurisdiction of courts and high existing pendency of cases.8The Standing Committee recommended that an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and fast track courts should be set up to expedite disposal of contract enforcement cases. It suggested that efforts should be made to limit adjournments to exceptional circumstances only. It also recommended that certified practitioners should be created, to assist dispute resolution.8[1]‘Doing Business 2018’, World Bank,http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/WBG/DoingBusiness/Documents/Annual-Reports/English/DB2018-Full-Report.pdf.[2]‘Doing Business 2017’, World Bank,http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/WBG/DoingBusiness/Documents/Annual-Reports/English/DB17-Full-Report.pdf.[3]Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-bill-2015-4100/.[4]G.S.R. 436 (E), G.S.R. 437 (E) and G.S.R. 438 (E), Gazette of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, May 4, 2017,http://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/Notifications%20for%20amendment%20under%20EPF%2C%20EPS%20and%20EDLI%20Schemes%20for%20e-Payment_0.pdf.[5]Finance Bill, 2017,http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-finance-bill-2017-4681/; Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2017,http://unionbudget.nic.in/ub2017-18/memo/memo.pdf.[6]National Judicial Data Grid,http://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdg_public/index.php.[7]Report of the Expert Committee on Prior Permissions and Regulatory Mechanism, Department of Industrial Policy Promotion, February 27, 2016.[8]‘Ease of Doing Business’, 122ndReport of the Department Related Standing Committee on Commerce, December 21, 2015,http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20Commerce/122.pdf.[9]Ease of Doing Business: An Enterprise of Survey of Indian States, NITI Aayog, August 28, 2017,http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/EoDB_Single.pdf.[10]Start Up India Action Plan, January 2016,http://www.startupindia.gov.in/pdffile.php?title=Startup%20India%20Action%20Plan&type=Action&q=Action%20Plan.pdf&content_type=Action&submenupoint=action.[11]Land Records and Titles in India, September 2017,http://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/analytical-reports/land-records-and-titles-in-india-4941/.[12]The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-central-goods-and-services-tax-bill-2017-4697/.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c446d51184950038984783 | blog | LegislationThe FRDI Bill: Bail-In provisions explainedVatsal Khullar- December 7, 2017TheFinancial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill, 2017was introduced in Lok Sabha during Monsoon Session 2017. The Bill is currently being examined by a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. It seeks to establish a Resolution Corporation which will monitor the risk faced by financial firms such as banks and insurance companies, and resolve them in case of failure. For FAQs explaining the regulatory framework under the Bill, please seehere.Over the last few days, there has been some discussion around provisions of the Bill which allow for cancellation or writing down of liabilities of a financial firm (known as bail-in).[1],[2]There are concerns that these provisions may put depositors in an unfavourable position in case a bank fails. In this context, we explain the bail-in process below.What is bail-in?The Bill specifies various tools to resolve a failing financial firm which include transferring its assets and liabilities, merging it with another firm, or liquidating it. One of these methods allows for a financial firm on the verge of failure to be rescued by internally restructuring its debt. This method is known as bail-in.Bail-in differs from a bail-out which involves funds being infused by external sources to resolve a firm. This includes a failing firm being rescued by the government.How does it work?Under bail-in, the Resolution Corporation can internally restructure the firm’s debt by: (i) cancelling liabilities that the firm owes to its creditors, or (ii) converting its liabilities into any other instrument (e.g., converting debt into equity), among others.[3]Bail-in may be used in cases where it is necessary to continue the services of the firm, but the option of selling it is not feasible.[4]This method allows for losses to be absorbed and consequently enables the firm to carry on business for a reasonable time period while maintaining market confidence.3The Bill allows the Resolution Corporation to either resolve a firm by only using bail-in, or use bail-in as part of a larger resolution scheme in combination with other resolution methods like a merger or acquisition.Do the current laws in India allow for bail-in? What happens to bank deposits in case of failure?Current laws governing resolution of financial firms do not contain provisions for a bail in. If a bank fails, it may either be merged with another bank or liquidated.In case of bank deposits, amounts up to one lakh rupees are insured by the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC). In the absence of the bank having sufficient resources to repay deposits above this amount, depositors will lose their money. The DICGC Act, 1961 originally insured deposits up to Rs 1,500 and permitted the DICGC to increase this amount with the approval of the central government. The current insured amount of one lakh rupees was fixed in May 1993.[5]The Bill has a similar provision which allows the Resolution Corporation to set the insured amount in consultation with the RBI.Does the Bill specify safeguards for creditors, including depositors?The Bill specifies that the power of the Corporation while using bail-in to resolve a firm will be limited. There are certain safeguards which seek to protect creditors and ensure continuity of critical functions of the firm.When resolving a firm through bail-in, the Corporation will have to ensure that none of the creditors (including bank depositors) receive less than what they would have been entitled to receive if the firm was to be liquidated.[6],[7]Further, the Bill allows a liability to be cancelled or converted under bail-in only if the creditor has given his consent to do so in the contract governing such debt. The terms and conditions of bank deposits will determine whether the bail-in clause can be applied to them.Do other countries contain similar provisions?After the global financial crisis in 2008, several countries such as the US and those across Europe developed specialised resolution capabilities. This was aimed at preventing another crisis and sought to strengthen mechanisms for monitoring and resolving sick financial firms.The Financial Stability Board, an international body comprising G20 countries (including India), recommended that countries should allow resolution of firms by bail-in under their jurisdiction. The European Union also issued a directive proposing a structure for member countries to follow while framing their respective resolution laws. This directive suggested that countries should include bail-in among their resolution tools. Countries such as UK and Germany have provided for bail-in under their laws. However, this method has rarely been used.7,[8]One of the rare instances was in 2013, when bail-in was used to resolve a bank in Cyprus.———————————————–[1]‘Modi government’s FRDI bill may take away all your hard-earned money’, India Today, December 5, 2017,http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/frdi-bill-banking-reforms-modi-government-india-parliament/1/1103422.html.[2]‘Bail-in doubts — on financial resolution legislation’, The Hindu, December 5, 2017,http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/bail-in-doubts/article21261606.ece.[3]Section 52, The Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill, 2017.[4]Report of the Committee to Draft Code on Resolution of Financial Firms, September 2016,http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Financial%20Resolution%20Bill,%202017/FRDI%20Bill%20Drafting%20Committee%20Report.pdf.[5]The Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961,https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Publications/PDFs/dicgc_act.pdf. s[6]Section 55, The Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill, 2017.[7]The Bank of England’s approach to resolution, October 2014, Bank of England.[8]Recovery and resolution, BaFin, Federal Financial Supervisory Authority of Germany,https://www.bafin.de/EN/Aufsicht/BankenFinanzdienstleister/Massnahmen/SanierungAbwicklung/sanierung_abwicklung_artikel_en.html.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c4473511849500389847e0 | blog | LegislationWill the changes to the Contract Labour Act benefit workers?Kaushiki- October 26, 2012A change in theContract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970may be in the pipeline. According tonews reports, the government may amend the 1970 Act to safeguard the interest of contract workers. The proposal is to bring parity between permanent and contractual workers in wages and other benefits. The Contract Labour Act, 1970 regulates the employment of contract labour in establishments which employ 20 or more workmen. It excludes any establishment whose work is intermittent or casual in nature. The appropriate government may require establishments to provide canteens, rest rooms and first aid facilities to contract labourers. The contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him. There are penalties listed for contravening the Act. According to theReportof the National Commission on Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS), more than 90% of the workforce is part of the unorganised sector. Contract labour is found in certain activities in the unorganized sector such as in stone quarrying, beedi rolling, rice shelling and brick kiln. The Commission recommended some measures to protect the workers in the unorganized sector such as ensuring minimum conditions of work, minimum level of social security and improved credit flow to the non-agricultural sector. TheReportof the Working Group on “Labour Laws and other Regulations” for the 12thFive Year Plan, also proposed that the 1970 Act should be amended. The amendment should ensure that in case of contract labour performing work similar to that performed by permanent workers, they should be entitled to the same wage rates, holidays, hours of work and social security provisions. Furthermore, whenever a contract worker is engaged through a contractor, the contract agreement between the employer and the contractor should clearly indicate the wages and other benefits to be paid by the contractor. However, other experts such asBibek Debroy,Kaushik BasuandRajeev Dehejiahave recommended broad reforms in India’s labour laws to allow for more flexibility in the labour market. According to them, these laws protect only a small portion of workers in the organized sector.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c446df118495003898478e | blog | LegislationMalnutrition in India: The National Nutrition Strategy explainedNivedita Rao- September 8, 2017In the recent past, there has been a renewed discussion around nutrition in India. A few months ago, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had released the National Health Policy, 2017.[1]It highlighted the negative impact of malnutrition on the population’s productivity, and its contribution to mortality rates in the country. In light of the long term effects of malnutrition, across generations, the NITI Aayog released the National Nutrition Strategy this week. This post presents the current status of malnutrition in India and measures proposed by this Strategy.What is malnutrition?Malnutrition indicates that children are either too short for their age or too thin.[2]Children whose height is below the average for their age are considered to be stunted. Similarly, children whose weight is below the average for their age are considered thin for their height or wasted. Together, the stunted and wasted children are considered to be underweight – indicating a lack of proper nutritional intake and inadequate care post childbirth.What is the extent of malnutrition in India?India’s performance on key malnutrition indicators is poor according to national and international studies. According to UNICEF, India was at the 10th spot among countries with the highest number of underweight children, and at the 17th spot for the highest number of stunted children in the world.[3]Malnutrition affects chances of survival for children, increases their susceptibility to illness, reduces their ability to learn, and makes them less productive in later life.[4]It is estimated that malnutrition is a contributing factor in about one-third of all deaths of children under the age of 5.[5]Figure 1 looks at the key statistics on malnutrition for children in India.Figure1: Malnutrition in children under 5 years (2005-06 and 2015-16)Sources: National Family Health Survey 3 & 4; PRS.Over the decade between 2005 and 2015, there has been an overall reduction in the proportion of underweight children in India, mainly on account of an improvement in stunting. While the percentage of stunted children under 5 reduced from 48% in 2005-06 to 38.4% in 2015-16, there has been a rise in the percentage of children who are wasted from 19.8% to 21% during this period.[6],[7]A high increase in the incidence of wasting was noted in Punjab, Goa, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Sikkim.[8]The prevalence of underweight children was found to be higher in rural areas (38%) than urban areas (29%). According to WHO, infants weighing less than 2.5 Kg are 20 times more likely to die than heavier babies.2In India, the national average weight at birth is less than 2.5 Kg for 19% of the children. The incidence of low birth-weight babies varied across different states, with Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh witnessing the highest number of underweight childbirths at 23%.[9]Further, more than half of India’s children are anaemic (58%), indicating an inadequate amount of haemoglobin in the blood. This is caused by a nutritional deficiency of iron and other essential minerals, and vitamins in the body.2Is malnutrition witnessed only among children?No. Among adults, 23% of women and 20% of men are considered undernourished in India. On the other hand, 21% of women and 19% of men are overweight or obese. The simultaneous occurrence of over nutrition and under-nutrition indicates that adults in India are suffering from a dual burden of malnutrition (abnormal thinness and obesity). This implies that about 56% of women and 61% of men are at normal weight for their height.What does the National Nutrition Strategy propose?Various government initiatives have been launched over the years which seek to improve the nutrition status in the country. These include the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), the National Health Mission, the Janani Suraksha Yojana, the Matritva Sahyog Yojana, the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and the National Food Security Mission, among others. However, concerns regarding malnutrition have persisted despite improvements over the years. It is in this context that the National Nutrition Strategy has been released. Key features of the Strategy include:8The Strategy aims toreduce all forms of malnutrition by 2030, with a focus on the most vulnerable and critical age groups. The Strategy also aims to assist in achieving the targets identified as part of the Sustainable Development Goals related to nutrition and health.The Strategy aims to launch aNational Nutrition Mission,similar to the National Health Mission. This is to enable integration of nutrition-related interventions cutting across sectors like women and child development, health, food and public distribution, sanitation, drinking water, and rural development.Adecentralised approachwill be promoted with greater flexibility and decision making at the state, district and local levels. Further, the Strategy aims to strengthen the ownership of Panchayati Raj institutions and urban local bodies over nutrition initiatives. This is to enable decentralised planning and local innovation along with accountability for nutrition outcomes.The Strategy proposes to launch interventions with a focus on improvinghealthcare and nutritionamong children. These interventions will include: (i) promotion of breastfeeding for the first six months after birth, (ii) universal access to infant and young child care (including ICDS and crèches), (iii) enhanced care, referrals and management of severely undernourished and sick children, (iv) bi-annual vitamin A supplements for children in the age group of 9 months to 5 years, and (v) micro-nutrient supplements and bi-annual de-worming for children.Measures to improvematernal careand nutrition include: (i) supplementary nutritional support during pregnancy and lactation, (ii) health and nutrition counselling, (iii) adequate consumption of iodised salt and screening of severe anaemia, and (iv) institutional childbirth, lactation management and improved post-natal care.Governance reformsenvisaged in the Strategy include: (i) convergence of state and district implementation plans for ICDS, NHM and Swachh Bharat, (ii) focus on the most vulnerable communities in districts with the highest levels of child malnutrition, and (iii) service delivery models based on evidence of impact.[1]National Health Policy, 2017, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, March 16, 2017,http://mohfw.nic.in/showfile.php?lid=4275[2]Nutrition in India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2005-06,http://rchiips.org/nfhs/nutrition_report_for_website_18sep09.pdf[3]Unstarred Question No. 2759, Lok Sabha, Answered on March 17, 2017,http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU2759.pdf[4]Helping India Combat Persistently High Rates of Malnutrition, The World Bank, May 13, 2013,http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/05/13/helping-india-combat-persistently-high-rates-of-malnutrition[5]Unstarred Question No. 4902, Lok Sabha, Answered on December 16, 2016,http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/10/AU4902.pdf[6]National Family Health Survey – 3, 2005-6, Ministry of Health and Family Welfarehttp://rchiips.org/nfhs/pdf/India.pdf[7]National Family Health Survey – 4 , 2015-16, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,http://rchiips.org/NFHS/pdf/NFHS4/India.pdf[8]National Nutrition Strategy, 2017, NITI Aayog, September 2017,http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Nutrition_Strategy_Booklet.pdf[9]Rapid Survey On Children, Ministry of Women and Child Development, 2013-14,http://wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/RSOC%20National%20Report%202013-14%20Final.pdfParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c446bb1184950038984769 | blog | ParliamentAnalysis of the contesting candidates in General Election 2019Ankita Nanda,Manish Kanadje- May 13, 2019The nominations for all phases of the General Election have been submitted. We examine highlights from data on candidates who are participating in the ongoing elections. There are 8,039 candidates contesting for 542 Parliamentary constituency seats.On average, 14.8 candidates are contesting per constituency across the country. Among all the states, Telangana has the highest average number of candidates contesting. This is primarily due to 185 contestants from Nizamabad. Excluding Nizamabad, the state’s average number of contestants would be 16.1.The Election Commission of India recognises parties as either national or state parties based on their performance in previous elections. Delhi and Haryana have a high number of candidates contesting from parties that have not been recognised as either national or state parties.After Telangana, Tamil Nadu has the highest average of independent candidates contesting in this election. On average, of the candidates in each constituency in Tamil Nadu, two-thirds are contesting as independent candidates.After Nizamabad, the second highest number of candidate representation is seen in Belgaum, Karnataka. The five constituencies that have the highest candidate representation are from the southern states of Telangana, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu.The Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress are contesting 435 and 420 seats respectively. In 373 seats they are in competition with each other. BSP has the third highest number of candidates contesting in this election.The seven national parties together fielded 2.69 candidates per constituency. Among the largest five states, West Bengal has the highest representation of candidates from national parties, at 4.6. In that state, candidates from five national parties are contesting.Recognised state parties, together, fielded 1.53 candidates per constituency. Bihar (6 state parties) and Tamil Nadu (8 state parties) see a high representation of candidates from state parties, at 1.2 and 1.3 respectively.Largest states are ones with more than 30 Parliamentary constituency seats: Uttar Pradesh (80), Maharashtra (48), West Bengal (42), Bihar (40), and Tamil Nadu (39). These states together have 249 seats i.e., 46% of Lok Sabha.For these five states, the number of seats being contested by national and state parties is shown in the figures below.This analysis is based on the candidate list available on the Election Commission website (eci.gov.in) on May 8, 2019.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c446d61184950038984784 | blog | LegislationThe Anti-Defection Law ExplainedVibhor Relhan- December 6, 2017On Monday, December 4, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha disqualified two Members of Parliament (MPs) from the House under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (better known as the anti-defection law) for having defected from their party.[1]These members were elected on a Janata Dal (United) ticket. The Madras High Court is also hearing petitions filed by 18 MLAs who were disqualified by the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Assembly in September 2017 under the anti-defection law. Allegations of legislators defecting in violation of the law have been made in several other states including Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Nagaland, Telangana and Uttarakhand in recent years.[2]In this context, we explain the anti-defection law.What is the anti-defection law?Aaya Ram Gaya Ramwas a phrase that became popular in Indian politics after a Haryana MLA Gaya Lal changed his party thrice within the same day in 1967. The anti-defection law sought to prevent such political defections which may be due to reward of office or other similar considerations.[3]The Tenth Schedule was inserted in the Constitution in 1985. It lays down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection by the Presiding Officer of a legislature based on a petition by any other member of the House. A legislator is deemed to have defected if he eithervoluntarily gives up the membership of his party or disobeys the directives of the party leadership on a vote.This implies that a legislator defying (abstaining or voting against) the party whip on any issue can lose his membership of the House. The law applies to both Parliament and state assemblies.Are there any exceptions under the law?Yes, legislators may change their party without the risk of disqualification in certain circumstances. The law allows a party to merge with or into another party provided that at least two-thirds of its legislators are in favour of the merger. In such a scenario, neither the members who decide to merge, nor the ones who stay with the original party will face disqualification.Various expert committees have recommended that rather than the Presiding Officer, the decision to disqualify a member should be made by the President (in case of MPs) or the Governor (in case of MLAs) on the advice of the Election Commission.[4]This would be similar to the process followed for disqualification in case the person holds an office of profit (i.e. the person holds an office under the central or state government which carries a remuneration, and has not been excluded in a list made by the legislature).How has the law been interpreted by the Courts while deciding on related matters?The Supreme Court has interpreted different provisions of the law. We discuss some of these below.The phrase ‘Voluntarily gives up his membership’ has a wider connotation than resignationThe law provides for a member to be disqualified if he ‘voluntarily gives up his membership’. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted that in the absence of a formal resignation by the member, the giving up of membership can be inferred by his conduct.[5]In other judgments, members who have publicly expressed opposition to their party or support for another party were deemed to have resigned.[6]In the case of the two JD(U) MPs who were disqualified from Rajya Sabha on Monday, they were deemed to have ‘voluntarily given up their membership’ by engaging in anti-party activities which included criticizing the party on public forums on multiple occasions, and attending rallies organised by opposition parties in Bihar.[7]Decision of the Presiding Officer is subject to judicial reviewThe law initially stated that the decision of the Presiding Officer is not subject to judicial review. This condition was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1992, thereby allowing appeals against the Presiding Officer’s decision in the High Court and Supreme Court.[8]However, it held that there may not be any judicial intervention until the Presiding Officer gives his order.In 2015, the Hyderabad High Court, refused to intervene after hearing a petition which alleged that there had been delay by the Telangana Assembly Speaker in acting against a member under the anti-defection law.[9]Is there a time limit within which the Presiding Officer has to decide?The law does not specify a time-period for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification plea. Given that courts can intervene only after the Presiding Officer has decided on the matter, the petitioner seeking disqualification has no option but to wait for this decision to be made.There have been several cases where the Courts have expressed concern about the unnecessary delay in deciding such petitions.[10]In some cases this delay in decision making has resulted in members, who have defected from their parties, continuing to be members of the House. There have also been instances where opposition members have been appointed ministers in the government while still retaining the membership of their original parties in the legislature.[11]In recent years, opposition MLAs in some states, such as Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, have broken away in small groups gradually to join the ruling party. In some of these cases, more than 2/3rdof the opposition has defected to the ruling party.In these scenarios, the MLAs were subject to disqualification while defecting to the ruling party in smaller groups. However, it is not clear if they will still face disqualification if the Presiding Officer makes a decision after more than 2/3rdof the opposition has defected to the ruling party. The Telangana Speaker in March 2016 allowed the merger of the TDP Legislature Party in Telangana with the ruling TRS, citing that in total, 80% of the TDP MLAs (12 out of 15) had joined the TRS at the time of taking the decision.[12]In Andhra Pradesh, legislators of the main opposition party recently boycotted the entire 12-day assembly session. This boycott was in protest against the delay of over 18 months in action being taken against legislators of their party who have allegedly defected to the ruling party.[13]The Vice President, in his recent order disqualifying two JD(U) members stated that all such petitions should be decided by the Presiding Officers within a period of around three months.Does the anti-defection law affect the ability of legislators to make decisions?The anti-defection law seeks to provide a stable government by ensuring the legislators do not switch sides. However, this law also restricts a legislator from voting in line with his conscience, judgement and interests of his electorate. Such a situation impedes the oversight function of the legislature over the government, by ensuring that members vote based on the decisions taken by the party leadership, and not what their constituents would like them to vote for.Political parties issue a direction to MPs on how to vote on most issues, irrespective of the nature of the issue. Several experts have suggested that the law should be valid only for those votes that determine the stability of the government (passage of the annual budget or no-confidence motions).[14]————————————————————[1]Parliamentary Bulletin-II, December 4, 2017,http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=57066andhttp://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=57067.[2]MLA Defection Politics Not New, Firstpost, March 13, 2017,http://www.firstpost.com/politics/bjp-forms-govt-in-goa-manipur-mla-defection-politics-not-new-telangana-ap-perfected-it-3331872.html.[3]The Constitution (52ndAmendment) Act, 1985,http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend52.htm.[4]Report of the Committee on Electoral Reforms, 1990,http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Dinesh%20Goswami%20Report%20on%20Electoral%20Reforms.pdfand the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution (NCRWC), 2002,http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/ncrwcreport.htm.[5]Ravi Naik vs Union of India, 1994,https://indiankanoon.org/doc/554446/.[6]G.Viswanathan Vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras& Another, 1996,https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1093980/and Rajendra Singh Rana vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others, 2007,https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1620629/and Parliamentary Bulletin-II, December 4, 2017,http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=57066.[7]Parliamentary Bulletin-II, December 4, 2017,http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=57066.[8]Kihoto Hollohon vs. Zachilhu and Others, 1992,https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1686885/.[9]Sabotage of Anti-Defection Law in Telangana, 2015,https://www.epw.in/journal/2015/50/commentary/sabotage-anti-defection-law-telangana.html.[10]Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha Vs Kuldeep Bishnoi & Ors., 2012,https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45034065/and Mayawati Vs Markandeya Chand & Ors., 1998,https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1801522/.[11]Anti-Defecton Law Ignored, November 30, 2017,http://www.news18.com/news/politics/anti-defection-law-ignored-as-mlas-defect-to-tdp-trs-in-andhra-pradesh-and-telangana-1591319.htmland It’s official Minister Talasani is still a TDP Member, March 27, 2015,http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Telangana/2015-03-27/Its-Official-Minister-Talasani-is-still-a-TDP-member/140135.[12]Telangana Legislative Assembly Bulletin, March 10, 2016,http://www.telanganalegislature.org.in/documents/10656/19317/Assembly+Buletin.PDF/a0d4bb52-9acf-494f-80e7-3a16e3480460; 12 TDP MLAs merged with TRS, March 11, 2016,http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/telangana/12-tdp-mlas-merged-with-trs/article8341018.ece.[13]The line TD leaders dare not cross, December 4,http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/the-line-td-leaders-dare-not-cross/article21257521.ece[14]Report of the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution, 2002,http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/ncrwcreport.htm, Report of the Committee on electoral reforms, 1990,http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Dinesh%20Goswami%20Report%20on%20Electoral%20Reforms.pdfand Law Commission (170th report), 1999,http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/lc170.htm.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c447921184950038984845 | blog | ParliamentPre-legislative scrutiny: How can citizens be more actively involved?Tonusree- December 18, 2010In recent public discourse over lobbying, two issues that have underscored the debate are:Greater transparency in the policymaking process, andEquality of access for all stakeholders in engaging with the process.There is a need to build linkages between citizens and the policy making process, especially by strengthening scrutiny before a Bill is introduced in Parliament. Currently, there is no process established to ensure pre-legislative scrutiny by the citizenry. Other democracies incorporate several measures to enhance public engagement in the pre-legislative process. These include:Making all Bills available in the public domain for a stipulated period before introducing them in the legislature. This includes, publishing these Bills in forms (language, medium etc) that are accessible to the general public.Making a report or Green paper on the legislative priorities addressed by the Bill available for citizens.Forming adhoc committees to scrutinise the Bill before it is piloted in the House.Having Standing Committees examine the Bill before introducing it in the House.Providing a financial memorandum for each Bill, which specifies the budgetary allocation for the process/bodies created by the Bill.Creating online fora for discussion. For the sections of the stakeholders who have limited access to the internet, efforts are made to proactively consult them through other media.Expanding the purview of citizens’ right to petition their representatives with legislative proposals.There are several instances, in the last few years itself, wherein civil society groups have played an active role in the development of pre-legislative scrutiny in India.Public consultation with cross-section of stakeholders when drafting a Bill:The Right to Information Act is seen as a landmark legislation when highlighting the role of civil society actors in the drafting of a Bill. It also serves as a prime example for how it the movement mobilised widespread public opinion for the Bill, bringing together different sections of the citizenry.Public feedback on draft Bills:In several cases, after a Bill has been drafted the concerned ministry or public body publishes the Bill, inviting public comments. TheRight to Education Bill, theNational Identification Authority Billand theDraft Direct Taxes Code Bill 2009are recent cases in point. These announcements are made through advertisements published in newspapers and other media. For instance, the government has recently proposed to amend the rules of the RTI andhas invited public feedback on the rules by December 27.Engaging with legislators:It is important to expand engagement with lawmakers after the Bill has been introduced in Parliament, as they will determine what the law will finally contain. This is done by approaching individual legislators or members of the committee which is likely to examine the legislation. Standing Committees invite feedback on the Bill through newspaper advertisements. For instance, the Standing Committee examining theCivil Nuclear Liability Billheard testimonies from journalists, civil society groups, thinktanks, public bodies and government departments.The role of the media and channelising the potential of the internet are other key approaches that need to be explored. Other examples and channels of engagement with the legislative process are illustrated in thePRS Primer on Engaging with PolicymakersParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c447651184950038984813 | blog | PolicyDraft Policies on Telecom, Electronics and Information Technology: Some IssuesSimran- October 25, 2011The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology released three draft policies on telecommunications, information technology and electronics. The Ministry has invited comments on the draft policies, which may be sent [email protected]. These policies have the common goal of increasing revenues and increasing global market share. However, the policies may be incompatible with the Direct Taxes Code Bill, 2010 (DTC) and India’s international obligations under the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT). Below we discuss these policies within the scope of the GATT and the DTC. The draft National Information Technology Policy, 2011 aims to formulate a fiscal structure to attract investment in the IT industry in tier II and III cities. It also seeks to prepare SMEs for a competitive environment by providing fiscal benefits. Similarly, the draft National Electronics Policy provides for fiscal incentives in manufacturing on account of infrastructure gaps relating to power, transportation etc. and to mitigate the relatively high cost of finance. The draft policy also provides preferential market access for domestically manufactured or designed electronic products including mobile devices and SIM cards. The draft National Telecom Policy seeks to provide fiscal incentives required by indigenous manufacturers of telecom products and R&D institutions. The theme of the DTC was to remove distortions arising from incentives. The detailed note annexed to the Bill states that “tax incentives are inefficient, distorting, iniquitous, impose greater compliance burden on the tax payer and on the administration, result in loss of revenue, create special interest groups, add to the complexity of the tax laws, and encourage tax avoidance and rent seeking behaviour.” It further notes that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on finance had recommended removal of exemptions other than in exceptional cases. As per the Department of Revenue, tax holidays should only be given in businesses with extremely high risks, lumpy investments and lengthy gestation periods. The DTC also removes location-based incentives as these “lead to diversion of resources to areas where there is no comparative advantage”. These also lead to tax evasion and avoidance, and huge administrative costs. The proposals to provide fiscal incentives in all three draft policies contradict the direction of the direct tax reforms. Article 3 of GATT provides that foreign products should be accorded the same treatment accorded to similar domestic products in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution and use. The provisions in the draft electronics policy to secure preferential market access to products manufactured in India may contravene this Article. In granting such fiscal and trade incentives, the policies may be contrary to the approach adopted in the DTC and India’s obligations under the GATT. These draft policies will have to be reconciled with tax reforms and trade obligations.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c4471b11849500389847c7 | blog | ParliamentHouse of Lost Opportunitiesadmin_2- May 2, 2013The last few days have seen repeated disruptions in Parliament. In anOpinion Editorial published in the Indian Express, Chakshu Roy of PRS Legislative Research discusses the impact of the current disruptions on Parliament. His analysis points to how disruptions are an opportunity lost to hold the government accountable and to deliberate on significant legislative and policy issues. The second half of the budget session commenced last week with hardly any business transacted due to disruptions on different issues. This is not new. The 15th Lok Sabha has seen entire parliamentary sessions lost without any work being done. As it nears the end of its term, Parliament's productive time stands at 70 per cent, which is significantly lower than that of previous Lok Sabhas. As disruptions in Parliament have become routine, public reaction to such disruptions has also become predictable. Figures depicting the quantum of taxpayers' money lost every hour that Parliament does not function start doing the rounds, and the cry for docking the salary of disrupting members of Parliament becomes louder. What does not get adequate attention is the opportunity lost for holding the government accountable and deliberating on important legislative and policy issues. MPs are required to keep the government in check and oversee its functioning. One of the ways in which they do so is by asking ministers questions about the work done by their ministries. Ministers respond to such questions during the first hour of Parliament, which is known as question hour. During this hour, 20 questions are slotted for oral responses by ministers. Based on the response, MPs can cross-question and corner the minister by asking supplementary questions. On certain occasions, they are also able to extract assurances from the minister to take action on certain issues. When question hour is disrupted, not only are these opportunities lost, it also leads to ineffective scrutiny of the work done by the various ministries of the government. Last week, some of the questions that could not be orally answered related to four-laning of highways, performance of public sector steel companies, supply of food grains for welfare schemes, and generic versions of cancer drugs. In 2012, out of the 146 hours allocated for question hour in both Houses of Parliament, roughly only 57 hours were utilised. Since the beginning of the 15th Lok Sabha in 2009, approximately 43 per cent of the allocated time has been spent on question hour. When Parliament is disrupted regularly, its capacity to make laws is affected. Excluding routine financial legislation, since 2009, the government had planned to introduce 390 bills. So far, it has been able to introduce only 187 of them. It had also planned to have 365 bills scrutinised and passed by Parliament. So far, 96 of them have received parliamentary approval. Disruptions in Parliament also eat into the time available for discussing a bill in the house. In Lok Sabha, roughly 35 per cent of bills were passed with an hour or less of debate, a case being the sexual harassment bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha in September of last year in 16 minutes. Some would argue that since parliamentary committees scrutinise most bills in detail, there is no harm done if the bills are not debated in the House. However scrutiny of a bill behind closed doors is hardly a substitute for spirited debates on the merits and demerits of a bill on the floor of the House. Currently there are 115 bills awaiting parliamentary scrutiny and approval. Important social and economic legislation is currently pending before Parliament. The food security bill, the land acquisition bill, the companies and the goods and services tax bill are just a few of them. Out of the laundry list of pending bills, some are political and may be stuck in Parliament till consensus around them can be built. But there are a number of bills that are administrative in nature, and have no political undercurrents and are possibly not coming up for discussion because of the limited time that is available for legislative debate on account of frequent disruptions. In September 1997, to celebrate the golden jubilee of the country's Independence, a special session of Parliament was convened. At this special session, MPs had resolved to preserve and enhance the dignity of Parliament by adhering to the rules of procedure of Parliament relating to the orderly conduct of parliamentary proceedings. Last year, Parliament completed 60 years since its first sitting. To mark the occasion, another special session of both Houses was convened, where MPs had resolved to uphold the dignity, sanctity and supremacy of Parliament. Ensuring that the proceedings of both Houses run smoothly so that Parliament can discharge its responsibility effectively is the best way of ensuring its supremacy. The question that needs to be asked is whether our members of Parliament are ready to stand by the resolutions that they voluntarily adopted.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
65c4471a11849500389847c6 | blog | LegislationMore food for thought - the Food Security BillSakshi- May 9, 2013The 15thLok Sabha is close to the end of its tenure. A key legislation that proposes major reforms in food security was listed for discussion in Parliament. The National Food Security Bill, 2011 has been scrutinised by a Standing Committee. In January, wecomparedthe Standing Committee's recommendations with the provisions of the Bill. Since then, amendments to the Bill have been introduced in Parliament. Debates on the Bill have revolved around the method of delivering food security, the identification of beneficiaries and the financial implications of the Bill.Method of deliveryThe Bill aims to make the right to food a statutory right. It proposes to use the existing Public Distribution System (PDS) to deliver foodgrain to 75% of the rural and 50% of the urban population. However, the Bill also allows for cash transfers and food coupons in lieu of grains as mechanisms to deliver food security. While the PDS is known to suffer from leakages as high as 40%, cash transfers and food coupons are known to expose recipients to volatility and price inflation. Each method of delivery would have its own implications, financial and otherwise. The table below compares these methods of delivery.[i][table id=7 /]IdentificationThe Bill does not universalise food entitlements. It classifies the population into two categories of beneficiaries, who shall be identified by the centre and states. Mechanisms that aim to target benefits to certain sections of the population have been prone to large inclusion and exclusion errors. A 2009 expert group study headed by N.C. Saxena that evaluated PDS, estimated that about 61% of the eligible population was excluded from the BPL list while 25% of APL households were included in the BPL list. Beneficiaries under the Food Security Bill will be identified through a similar process. It is unclear how these errors in identification of beneficiaries under the PDS will be addressed by the Bill.Financial implications - cost sharing between the centre and statesA Bill that aims to deliver food security to a large section of the country would have significant financial implications. Costs shall be shared between the centre and states. Costs imposed on states (partial or full) include: nutritional support to pregnant women and lactating mothers, mid-day meals, anganwadi infrastructure, meals for children suffering from malnutrition, transport and delivery of foodgrains, creating and maintaining storage facilities, and costs associated with District Grievance Redressal Officers and State Food Commissions. Although the centre shall provide some assistance, states will have to bear a significant financial burden on account of implementation. It is unclear whether Parliament can require states to allocate funds without encroaching on the powers of state legislative assemblies. If a state chooses not to allocate the necessary funds or does not possess the funds to do so, implementation of the Bill could be seriously affected. The Standing Committee examining the Bill had recommended that an independent body, such as the Finance Commission, should be consulted regarding additional funds to be borne by states. The Right to Education Act with similar centre-state sharing of funds provides for such a consultation with the Finance Commission.Cost of implementation of the BillAnother contentious issue is the cost of implementing the Bill. The Bill estimates the cost at Rs 95,000 crore. However, experts have made varying estimates on the costs ranging from Rs 2 lakh crore to Rs 3.5 lakh crore. Ashok Gulati, Chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, estimated the cost at 2 lakh crore per year whereas the Minister of Food, K.V. Thomas was reported to have estimated the cost at Rs 3.5 lakh crore. The passage of the food security Bill in Parliament will depend on the ability of the government to build consensus on these issues. It remains to be seen how the Bill is debated next Parliament session.[i]Kapur D., Mukhopadhyay P., and A. Subramanian. “The Case for Direct Cash Transfers to the Poor.” Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 43, No 15 (Apr 12-18, 2008). Khera, R. “Revival of the Public Distribution System: Evidence and Explanations.” Economic and Political Weekly. Vol XLVI, Nos 44 & 45 (Nov 5, 2011). Shah, M. “Direct Cash Transfers: No Magic Bullet.” Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 43, No 34, pp. 77-79 (Aug 23-29, 2008).ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910» |
81bf3499-7480-5e6e-b37c-e76ec80f052f | court_cases | Chattisgarh High CourtM/S Kushwaha Construction Company vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2022Author:Rajendra Chandra Singh SamantBench:Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant1\n\n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n\n WPC No. 1228 of 2022\n\n1. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address- Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) Through- Its\n Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha\n Aged About 54, R/o Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar\n (C.G.)\n\n ---- Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin\n Vikas, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,\n District- Raipur (C.G.)\n\n2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project\n Implementation Unit No. 1, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)\n\n3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)\n\n4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry Of Rural\n Development, Government Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji\n Cama Place, New Delhi\n\n ---- RespondentsWPC No. 1230 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address- Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) Through- Its\n Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha Aged\n About 54, R/o Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Panchayat and Gramin\n Vikas, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,\n District- Raipur (C.G.)2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project\n Implementation Unit No. 1, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)24. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry Of Rural\n Development Government Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5 th Floor,\n Bhikajicama Place, New Delhi---- RespondentsWPC No. 1231 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District Baster Chhattisgarh Through\n Its Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha\n Aged About 54, Resident Of Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District\n Baster Chhattisgarh---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Vikas,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District\n Raipur Chhattisgarh2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project\n Implementation Unit No. 1, C G R R D A, Jagdalpur, District Baster\n Chhattisgarh3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry Of Rural\n Development, Government Of India, 15 N B C C Tower, 5th Floor,\n Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi---- RespondentsWPC No. 1232 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattissgarh. Through\n Its Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha\n Aged About 54, R/o Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar\n Chhattisgarh.---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Vikas,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District\n Raipur Chhattisgarh.32. The Executive Enginner Cum Member Secrertary, Project\n Implementation Unit No. 1, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District Bastar\n Chhattisgarh.3. The Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh.4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency, Ministry Of Rural\n Development, Government Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji\n Cama Place, New Delhi.---- RespondentsWPC No. 1233 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address- Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District- Bastar C.G. Through Its\n Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha Aged\n About 54, Resident Of Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar\n (C.G.)---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Vikas,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District\n Raipur (C.G.)2. The Executive Engineer Cum Mamber Secretary, Project\n Implementation Unit No 1, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar C.G.3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry of Rural\n Development, Government of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji\n Cama Place, New Delhi---- RespondentsWPC No. 1234 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District Baster Chhattisgarh Through\n Its Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha\n Aged About 54, Resident Of Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District\n Baster Chhattisgarh---- Petitioner\n\n Versus41. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Vikas,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District\n Raipur Chhattisgarh2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project\n Implementation Unit No. 1, C G R R D A, Jagdalpur, District Baster\n Chhattisgarh3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry of Rural\n Development, Government of India, 15 N B C C Tower, 5th Floor,\n Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi---- RespondentsWPC No. 1235 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address- Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District- Bastar C.G. Through Its\n Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha Aged\n About 54, Resident Of Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar\n (C.G.)---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Vikas,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District\n Raipur (C.G.)2. The Executive Engineer Cum Mamber Secretary, Project\n Implementation Unit No 1, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar C.G.3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry of Rural\n Development, Government Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji\n Cama Place, New Delhi---- RespondentsWPC No. 1236 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address- Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) Through- Its\n Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha Aged About 54, R/o Shantinagar\n Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)---- Petitioner\n\n Versus51. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Panchayat and Gramin\n Vikas, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,\n District- Raipur Chhattisgarh2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project\n Implementation Unit No. 1, CGRRDA Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry of Rural\n Development, Govt., Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikajicama\n Place, New Delhi---- RespondentsWPC No. 1240 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address -\n Rajputana House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District-Bastar Chhattisgarh.\n Through Its Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh\n Kushwaha Aged About 54, Resident Of Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur,\n District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),\n Chhattisgarh---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Vikas,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-\n Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project\n Implementation Unit No. 1, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar\n Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Sadak Yojana\n Vikas Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,\n Chhattisgarh4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry of Rural\n Development, Government Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji\n Cama Place, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi---- RespondentsWPC No. 1241 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through\n Its Director, Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha\n Aged About 54, Resident Of Shantinagar, Ward, Jagdalpur, District\n Bastar Chhattisgarh.6---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin\n Vikas, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,\n District Raipur Chhattisgarh.2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project\n Implementation Unit No. 1, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District Bastar\n Chhattisgarh.3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh.4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry Of Rural\n Development, Government Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji\n Cama Place, New Delhi.---- RespondentsWPC No. 1257 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address- Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) Through Its\n Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha Aged\n About 54, Resident Of Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur District C.G.---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat and Gramin\n Vikas, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,\n District Raipur (C.G.)2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary, Project\n Implementation Unit No 1, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry Of Rural\n Development Goverment Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor,\n Bhikajicama Place, New Delhi---- RespondentsWPC No. 1261 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address Rajputana\n House , Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh, Through\n Its Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha Aged About 54 , Resident Of\n Shantinagar Ward , Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.7---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Vikas,\n Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur , District\n Raipur Chhattisgarh.2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project\n Implementation Unit No. 01, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur , District Bastar\n Chhattisgarh.3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh.4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry of Rural\n Development , Government Of India, 15 NBCC Tower , 5th Floor,\n Bhikaji Cama Place , New Delhi.---- RespondentsWPC No. 1281 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through\n Its Director Shri Dilip Kumar Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha\n Aged About 54, R/o Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar\n Chhattisgarh.---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Vikas,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District\n Raipur Chhattisgarh.2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary, Project\n Implementation Unit No 1,CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District Bastar\n Chhattisgarh.3. The Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh.4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency, Ministry of Rural\n Development, Government Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji\n Cama Place New Delhi.---- Respondents\n\n &8WPC No. 1283 of 20221. M/s Kushwaha Construction Company Registered Address Rajputana\n House, Shantinagar, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.---- Petitioner\n\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Vikas,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District\n Raipur Chhattisgarh.2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary, Project Implemention\n Unit No1, CGRRDA, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.3. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Yojana Vikas\n Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh.4. National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency, Ministry of Rural\n Development, Government Of India, 15 NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji\n Cama Place, New Delhi.---- Respondents\n\n\n\n\nFor Petitioner : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate.For State : Mr. Rahul Jha & Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt.Advocates, Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Mr. Ankur\n Kashyap, Mr. Vikash Shrivastava, Ms. Samiksha\n Gupta, Mr. P. Acharya, Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel\n Lawyers.For Union of India : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Mr. Akhand Pandey, Mr.\n Tushar Dhar Diwan, Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, Ms.\n Supriya Upasane, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Ms.\n Ayushi Agrawal, Ms. Anuja Sharma, Mr. Akhand\n Pratap, Mr. Roop Naik and Mr. Palash Tiwari,\n Advocates on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra,\n Assist. Solicitor General.(In all the cases)\n\n\n Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant\n Order On Board\n11/03/20221. It is submitted by the counsel for all the petitioner in all the cases, that\n\n the petitioner has filed representation before the respondent authorities9praying for reimbursement of GST amount regarding which relief is\n\n sought in this petition.2. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3\n\n and submits, that the matter may be disposed off with direction.3. Learned counsel for Union of India has also no objection if, the cases\n\n are disposed off.4. After considering the submissions, these petitions are disposed off at\n\n motion stage. The petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh\n\n representation along with the copy of this order within a period of 15\n\n days from today and on filing of such representation, the respondents\n\n No.3 & 4 shall be obliged to consider on the same and take decision at\n\n the earliest taking cognizance of the circular of respondent No.3 dated\n\n 13.9.2019. It is further ordered that the compliance of this order be\n\n made at the earliest within a period of 60 days.5. Accordingly, all the petitions are disposed off.Sd/-(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)\n Judge\nNisha |
5458f5d4-1cd0-5447-ab6e-4416e3099fc7 | court_cases | Bombay High CourtSakharam Ganu Mirgule vs Enquiry Officer And Ors on 12 June, 2023Author:Neela GokhaleBench:G.S. Patel,Neela Gokhale13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Amol\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4284 OF 2023\n\n\n Ravindra V Shedge ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer, M-Ward, Municipal Office & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4210 OF 2023\n\n Babu Shravan Sorate ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer M Ward Municipal Office & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4127 OF 2023\n\n Tulshiram Babu Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4080 OF 2023\n\n Bhau Dharma Badrike ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4175 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Tanaji Bhikaji Naik ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4246 OF 2023\n\n Shantaram Shiva Kadam ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4172 OF 2023\n\n Shankar Babaji Kadam ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4087 OF 2023\n\n Vishnu S Adivrekar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4077 OF 2023\n\n Govind Vitthal Patankar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4250 OF 2023\n\n Chandrakant Sayaji Kasare ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4149 OF 2023\n\n Devibai Dhanji Nangar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4180 OF 2023\n\n Dattaram Laxman Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4165 OF 2023\n\n Chandrakant Narsha Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4156 OF 2023\n\n Kamlakar Dhondu Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Page 3 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4141 OF 2023\n\n Ramdas Ramakant Prajapati ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4147 OF 2023\n\n Shamrao Krishna Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4176 OF 2023\n\n Shivram D Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4192 OF 2023\n\n Vasant Narayan Daristekar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4091 OF 2023\n\n Vishnu Narayan Matkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n\n\n\n Page 4 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4144 OF 2023\n\n Sulochana Gangaram Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4236 OF 2023\n\n Dattaram Govind Kudtarkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4163 OF 2023\n\n Ganpat Mruti Chavan ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4161 OF 2023\n\n Bhiva Bhau Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4252 OF 2023\n\n\n\n\n Page 5 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Hansa Ganpat Kale ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4168 OF 2023\n\n Rambhujharat Rajnarayan Singh ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4239 OF 2023\n\n Prakash Shankar Mhaske ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4240 OF 2023\n\n Pandurang Bhagya Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4110 OF 2023\n\n Damodar Devba Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n\n Page 6 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4164 OF 2023\n\n Sakharam Ganu Mirgule ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4093 OF 2023\n\n Indraprabhat Lataprasad Sing ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4237 OF 2023\n\n Mahadev D Tawade ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4137 OF 2023\n\n Balabai Pandharinath Shinde ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4136 OF 2023\n\n Kashinath Sakharam Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Page 7 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4148 OF 2023\n\n Prakash Dharma Pacharkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4107 OF 2023\n\n Gopal Devji Ubhare ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4142 OF 2023\n\n Zilu Hari Gawade ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4219 OF 2023\n\n Pandurang D Mhapralkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4181 OF 2023\n\n Gopal Apparao Bhise ...Petitioner\n Versus\n\n\n\n Page 8 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4101 OF 2023\n\n Bapu Bandu Gaikwad ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4099 OF 2023\n\n Maruti Babaji Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4173 OF 2023\n\n Anandibai Aba Manchekar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4122 OF 2023\n\n Kamlakar Vishram Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2023\n\n\n\n\n Page 9 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Ramchandra K Bhosale ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4185 OF 2023\n\n Dhondu S Jadahv ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4115 OF 2023\n\n Manohar S Rane ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4194 OF 2023\n\n Prakash S Patil ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4196 OF 2023\n\n Sangeeta M Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n\n Page 10 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4170 OF 2023\n\n Bapu R Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4178 OF 2023\n\n Punaji R Mosamkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4106 OF 2023\n\n Kashinath L Ubale ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4203 OF 2023\n\n Keshav B Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4186 OF 2023\n\n Puran S Walmiki ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Page 11 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4084 OF 2023\n\n Raghunath S Bhise ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4079 OF 2023\n\n Chhaya R Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4086 OF 2023\n\n Mahadeo L Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4191 OF 2023\n\n Vilas Y Thorat Through Constituted Attorney ...Petitioner\n Nitin V Thorat\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4143 OF 2023\n\n Kisan K Koli ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n Page 12 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4169 OF 2023\n\n Amol G Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4116 OF 2023\n\n Ratnaprabha S Chavan ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4235 OF 2023\n\n Chandrabhaga A Mangalkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4222 OF 2023\n\n Chandrakant S Kakade ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4179 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 13 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Anita Tambe ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4285 OF 2023\n\n Rajaram K Pandey Through its Constituted ...Petitioner\n Attorney Guidya P Pandey\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4190 OF 2023\n\n Alka S Koli ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4134 OF 2023\n\n Chandrabai R Kambe ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4283 OF 2023\n\n Dada G Kakade Through its Constitute Attorney ...Petitioner\n Anant G Kakade\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n Page 14 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4187 OF 2023\n\n Anita V Kochrekar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4158 OF 2023\n\n Krishna B Gaikwad ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4133 OF 2023\n\n Rupesh S Lokhande ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4199 OF 2023\n\n Bhagesh A Parab ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4197 OF 2023\n\n Sugandha L Kamble Through its Constituted ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n Page 15 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Attorney Jaipal L Kamble\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4100 OF 2023\n\n Rajendra T Nagtilak ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4198 OF 2023\n\n Rajendra S Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4193 OF 2023\n\n Asha V Sonavane ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4121 OF 2023\n\n Bharati P Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n\n Page 16 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4188 OF 2023\n\n Mangala S Tambe ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4189 OF 2023\n\n Lata K Tambe ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4157 OF 2023\n\n Sunita S Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4238 OF 2023\n\n Saraswati B More ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4183 OF 2023\n\n Santosh S Walanju ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Page 17 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4128 OF 2023\n\n Sachin S Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4302 OF 2023\n\n Mulji D Padaya ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4234 OF 2023\n\n Sunita S Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4108 OF 2023\n\n Vaishali A Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4288 OF 2023\n\n Dinkar S Gamre ...Petitioner\n Versus\n\n\n\n Page 18 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4275 OF 2023\n\n Vishaya V Khanolkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4153 OF 2023\n\n Devdas S Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4300 OF 2023\n\n Shalini B Gaikwad ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4167 OF 2023\n\n Mayawati P Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4303 OF 2023\n\n\n\n\n Page 19 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Sulochana S Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4278 OF 2023\n\n Uttam R Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4232 OF 2023\n\n Nanda V Dhanawade ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4217 OF 2023\n\n Mahendra B Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4131 OF 2023\n\n Santosh D Mohite ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n\n Page 20 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4296 OF 2023\n\n Dayanand D Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4139 OF 2023\n\n Vijay M Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4262 OF 2023\n\n Santosh S Walanju ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4146 OF 2023\n\n Kamlabai K Deepak ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4151 OF 2023\n\n Jaywanti M Sondkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Page 21 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4118 OF 2023\n\n Mangesh K Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4182 OF 2023\n\n Sulochana U Mhaske ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4241 OF 2023\n\n Vijay B Tirlotkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4160 OF 2023\n\n Kishor G Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4242 OF 2023\n\n Vivek A Kadam ...Petitioner\n Versus\n\n\n\n Page 22 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4166 OF 2023\n\n Sangeeta Jeevan More ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4299 OF 2023\n\n Maryam Y Nagothane ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4089 OF 2023\n\n Vanita D Argaonkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4102 OF 2023\n\n Laduji N Raul ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4245 OF 2023\n\n\n\n\n Page 23 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Savlaram D Jadhav Through POA Machindra S ...Petitioner\n Jadhav\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4162 OF 2023\n\n Manini Mahadev Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4112 OF 2023\n\n Sakharam K Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4244 OF 2023\n\n Santosh Narayan More ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4208 OF 2023\n\n Indubai Shankar Gagare ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 24 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4095 OF 2023\n\n Sangita B Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4243 OF 2023\n\n Manisha M Tilak ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4154 OF 2023\n\n Varsha B Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4260 OF 2023\n\n Suman Y Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4213 OF 2023\n\n Sundarabai Gunaji Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Page 25 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4155 OF 2023\n\n Madhavi M Khavnekar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4140 OF 2023\n\n Lalsingh J Sonar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4109 OF 2023\n\n Tukaram T Bhore ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4214 OF 2023\n\n Vasant S Khairnar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4152 OF 2023\n\n Baban Rongya Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n\n\n\n Page 26 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4174 OF 2023\n\n Malti M Joshi ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4123 OF 2023\n\n Hemendra B Wadhawana ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4150 OF 2023\n\n Dropadi L Prabhuvalkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4227 OF 2023\n\n Sanjay P Lokhande ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4215 OF 2023\n\n\n\n\n Page 27 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Sushma V Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2023\n\n Swapnil S Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4294 OF 2023\n\n Kamal J Mane ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4233 OF 2023\n\n Pramila P Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4082 OF 2023\n\n Rajashree S Phatak ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n\n Page 28 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4287 OF 2023\n\n Prakash N Gangawane ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4291 OF 2023\n\n Shakuntala H Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4258 OF 2023\n\n Yashwant M Parab ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4293 OF 2023\n\n Maheshkumar S Nare ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4211 OF 2023\n\n Vijaya M Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Page 29 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4290 OF 2023\n\n Narayan C Kari ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4289 OF 2023\n\n Prabhavati A Nadankar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4230 OF 2023\n\n Suhasini G Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4225 OF 2023\n\n Shantibai R Donde ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4306 OF 2023\n\n Sudhakar P Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n\n\n\n Page 30 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4201 OF 2023\n\n Sunita S Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4279 OF 2023\n\n Sunita M Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4145 OF 2023\n\n Deepak S Sodaye ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4226 OF 2023\n\n Sushila Mahadev Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4277 OF 2023\n\n\n\n\n Page 31 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Nilesh Loke ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4229 OF 2023\n\n Vijaya V More ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4256 OF 2023\n\n Milind V Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4254 OF 2023\n\n Deepak V Kadam ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4249 OF 2023\n\n Usha R Katanaware ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 32 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4218 OF 2023\n\n Subhdra G Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4271 OF 2023\n\n Shobha Y Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4248 OF 2023\n\n Narendra R Lokhande ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4253 OF 2023\n\n Shital D Walkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4269 OF 2023\n\n Javed S Khulli ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Page 33 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4272 OF 2023\n\n Abhishek G Pathak ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4267 OF 2023\n\n Sangita Mahadev Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4085 OF 2023\n\n Deepak W Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4092 OF 2023\n\n Sushila M Kudale ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4138 OF 2023\n\n Suhas B Mokal ...Petitioner\n Versus\n\n\n\n Page 34 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4205 OF 2023\n\n Ghangabai S Gaikwad ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4206 OF 2023\n Nirmala P Ahire\n ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4129 OF 2023\n\n Yumuna S Gaikwad ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4220 OF 2023\n\n Manda Y Shinde ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4298 OF 2023\n\n\n\n\n Page 35 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Sunanda A Rajapkar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4126 OF 2023\n\n Sulochana K Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4075 OF 2023\n\n Yogesh L Teli ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4307 OF 2023\n\n Santosh S Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4124 OF 2023\n\n Sandeep Ratnoo Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n\n Page 36 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4135 OF 2023\n\n Rajendra G Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4078 OF 2023\n\n Jaishree G Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2023\n\n Mahesh Y Dhumak ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4088 OF 2023\n\n Pramila P Dhamankar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4076 OF 2023\n\n Surendra P Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n Page 37 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4090 OF 2023\n\n Shital S Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4304 OF 2023\n\n Sanjay G Jagdhane ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4202 OF 2023\n\n Sandeep B Tambe ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4207 OF 2023\n\n Manoram M Kasle ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4113 OF 2023\n\n Nanda V Salunke ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n Page 38 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4224 OF 2023\n\n Nanda B Pawar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4117 OF 2023\n\n Pragati P Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4221 OF 2023\n\n Vaishali M Kasle ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4263 OF 2023\n\n Rajan D Gaikwad ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4209 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 39 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Nanda Anil Sorte ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4231 OF 2023\n Shewanti D Patil\n ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4097 OF 2023\n\n Sunil G Gosavi ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4282 OF 2023\n\n Yahswant L Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4105 OF 2023\n\n Bindu D Pandey ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 40 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4204 OF 2023\n\n Sandeep Sonu Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4104 OF 2023\n\n Manish G Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4081 OF 2023\n\n Rekha N Khare ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4083 OF 2023\n\n Ravindra Laxman Hindlekar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4286 OF 2023\n\n Suhas Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Page 41 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4125 OF 2023\n\n Rajan B Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4212 OF 2023\n\n Nikhil Kishor Mohite ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4274 OF 2023\n\n Nirmalla R Jadhav ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4119 OF 2023\n\n Jaywant M Gaikwad ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4177 OF 2023\n\n Parvati D Mirgala ...Petitioner\n Versus\n\n\n\n Page 42 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4096 OF 2023\n\n Mayawati G Tambe ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4223 OF 2023\n\n Ravindra T Sawant ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4295 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Reshma R Kamble ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4228 OF 2023\n\n Chandrakant B Jambhorikar ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4297 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 43 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Rakesh D Shinde ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4098 OF 2023\n\n Pravinkumar Madhukar Yewale ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4094 OF 2023\n\n Altaf M Shaikh ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4111 OF 2023\n\n Nalini A Shirke ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n Mr Abhay Parab, with Pooja Rane, for the Petitioner in all Petitions.\n Mr Ram Apte, Senior Advocate, with RY Sirsikar, for the\n Respondent-MCGM.\n Mr Jagdish Aradwad (Reddy), with Ashwini Jadhav for Respondent\n No. 3 & 4-SRA.\n Mr Manish Suryawanshi, Colony Officer, M/West Ward, Present.\n Mr AV Ghodke, Senior Estate Inspector, present.\n\n\n\n Page 44 of 45\n 12th June 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 :::\n 13-WP-4284-2023.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Mr DP Ghule, Estate Officer, M/West Ward, present.\n Smt JD Waghmare, Sr Colony Officer M/West.\n\n\n CORAM G.S. Patel &\n Neela Gokhale, JJ.DATED: 12th June 2023\n PC:-1. We have reference to our order dated 9th June 2023. Mr Apte\n has taken instructions. He tenders a list of the names of four\n officers. It is taken on record and marked as "A-1" for identification\n with today's date. These officers will commence the preparation of\n Annexure II immediately in accordance with all the applicable rules,\n norms and policiesy.2. List the matter for compliance and supervision on 10th July\n 2023.(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)Page 45 of 4512th June 2023::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 15:31:26 ::: |
adb739a6-568f-5922-9dc4-1f46c16423a5 | court_cases | Bombay High CourtNanda Anil Sorte vs Enquiry Officer And Ors on 10 July, 2023Author:Neela GokhaleBench:G.S. Patel,Neela Gokhale18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Gaikwad RD\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4284 OF 2023\n\n\n Ravindra V Shedge ...Petitioner\n Versus\n Enquiry Officer, M-Ward, Municipal Office & Ors ...Respondents\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4210 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4127 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4080 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4175 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4246 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4172 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4087 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4077 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4250 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4149 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4180 OF 2023\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4165 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4156 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4141 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4147 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4176 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4192 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4091 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4144 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4236 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4163 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4161 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4252 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4168 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4239 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4240 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4110 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4164 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4093 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4237 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4137 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4136 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4148 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4107 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4142 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4219 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4181 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4101 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4099 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4173 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4122 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4185 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4115 OF 2023\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 3 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4194 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4196 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4170 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4178 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4106 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4203 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4186 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4084 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4079 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4086 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4191 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4143 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4169 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4116 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4235 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4222 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4179 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 4 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4285 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4190 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4134 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4283 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4187 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4158 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4133 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4199 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4197 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4100 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4198 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4193 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4121 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4188 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4189 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4157 OF 2023\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 5 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4238 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4183 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4128 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4302 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4234 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4108 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4288 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4275 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4153 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4300 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4167 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4303 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4278 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4232 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4217 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4131 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4296 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 6 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4139 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4262 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4146 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4151 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4118 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4182 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4241 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4160 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4242 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4166 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4299 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4089 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4102 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4245 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4162 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4112 OF 2023\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 7 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4244 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4208 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4095 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4243 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4154 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4260 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4213 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4155 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4140 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4109 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4214 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4152 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4174 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4123 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4150 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4227 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4215 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 8 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4294 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4233 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4082 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4287 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4291 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4258 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4293 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4211 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4290 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4289 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4230 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4225 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4306 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4201 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4279 OF 2023\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 9 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4145 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4226 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4277 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4229 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4256 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4254 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4249 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4218 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4271 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4248 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4253 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4269 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4272 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4267 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4085 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4092 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4138 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 10 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4205 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4206 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4129 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4220 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4298 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4126 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4075 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4307 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4124 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4135 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4078 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4088 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4076 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4090 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4304 OF 2023\n WITH\n\n\n\n Page 11 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4202 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4207 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4113 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4224 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4117 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4221 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4263 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4209 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4231 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4097 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4282 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4105 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4204 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4104 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4081 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4083 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4286 OF 2023\n\n\n\n Page 12 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4125 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4212 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4274 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4119 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4177 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4096 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4223 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4295 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4228 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4297 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4098 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4094 OF 2023\n WITH\n WRIT PETITION NO. 4111 OF 2023\n\n\n Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Abhay Parab, Pooja Rane, S. Sable &\n Nikhita Ghosalkar, for the Petitioner in all Petitions.\n Mr Ram Apte, Senior Advocate, with RY Sirsikar, for the\n Respondent-MCGM.\n Mr Jagdish Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondent No. 3 & 4-SRA.\n Mr Jeetendra Waghmare, Senior Colony Officer, M/East is present.\n\n\n\n Page 13 of 20\n 10th July 2023\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::\n 18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n Mr Manish Suryawanshi, Colony Officer, M/East is present.\n Mr Vijay Padave, Rent Collector M/Eest is present.\n\n\n CORAM G.S. Patel &\n Neela Gokhale, JJ.DATED: 10th July 2023\n PC:-1. In this group of Petitions, we are dispensing with a need to\n show the short title of these Petitions. That listing of short titles is\n itself of 45 pages and is therefore no longer needed. The individual\n Petitions will be shown by their Petition numbers.2. We first made an order in the lead Petition on 28th March\n 2023. At that time, we granted ad-interim relief in the form of\n further work on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai\n ("MCGM") owned land in respect of the portion at village Ghatla,\n Khardeo Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. We noted that the\n project has in litigation for nearly 10 years. This is a Section 3K\n project under theMaharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,\n Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971("Slum Act") Scheme.\n There is a long round of history of previous litigations.3. The immediate compliant before us on 28th March 2023 was\n that the MCGM proposed, without certifying an Annexure II and\n without conducting a site survey inspection, to simply evict people.\n We noted that the conduct of the MCGM required far more\n explanation. We held that it would not possible to allow the MCGM\n to proceed with an eviction and demolition which would prejudicePage 14 of 2010th July 2023::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n hundreds of persons on site. We noted the precise CTS numbers in\n paragraph 7 of our order of that date and then said that there will be\n no further work of removal of structures or eviction of persons from\n site until further orders of this Court. We permitted MCGM to\n begin after sufficient notice the process of the physical survey of the\n structures but did not permit demolition of structure or the eviction\n of the persons.4. There were other orders thereafter and then we passed an\n order dated 9th July 2023. We noted on that date that there was no\n compliance with the directions to the MCGM to complete the\n preparation of Annexure-II. We demanded that the MCGM do so\n within the time frame that we set. Almost ten years had elapsed\n without compliance of previous orders of this Court. We were told\n that the process of Annexure-II will take some time. We said that\n the matter would be listed on 12th June 2023 when Mr Apte for the\n MCGM was to give us the names of some officers who would work\n on completing Annexure-II by 15th July 2023.5. On 12th June 2023, Mr Apte tendered a list of four officers.\n We took this list on record. They were to commence the preparation\n of Annexure-II immediately.6. The complaint today by Mr Khandeparkar for the Petitioners\n is that the Annexure-II said to have been prepared by the MCGM,\n and which Mr Apte says is still in draft, is wholly inadequate. None\n of the names of these 206 Petitioners are shown on the Annexure-II.\n All their structures are simply shown as Staff Quarters and nothingPage 15 of 2010th July 2023::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n more. The attempt is to deprive these persons of all eligibility to free\n of cost ownership premises on rehabilitation.7. Mr Khandeparkar's argument is that these persons, all now\n retired employees of the MCGM, by virtue of having received Photo\n Passes in a censused slum and under theSection 3KScheme must\n be treated on parity with all other eligible slum dwellers listed in\n Annexure-II. They are entitled to receive all the benefits of\n rehabilitation including permanent alternate accommodation. This\n basic statutory right cannot be denied to them by (mis)describing\n their premises as Staff Quarters.8. We have been taken through a series of orders relating to this\n project, but between Mr Khandeparkar and Mr Apte there are\n competing submissions as to what this Court has previously\n permitted in regard to premises under occupation by retired\n MCGM's Class-IV Staff. Our attention is also drawn to a decision of\n a Division Bench of this Court of AS Oka, J (as he then was) and RI\n Chawla, J in DJ Rane and others vs. The Municipal Commissioner and\n Ors.1 This is said to refer to a certain policy by which Class-IV\n employees were assured free of cost ownership accommodation, but\n this benefit was not extended to the employees or officers in a higher\n grade.9. Reference is also made to Government Resolution ("GR")\n and a Circular. The GR of 16th May 2015 is relied on by Mr\n Khandeparkar to say that the issuance of a Photo Pass (in Item 3 at\n\n 1 2018:BHC-OS:7131-DB : 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1050 : 2018 (4) ABR132.Page 16 of 2010th July 2023::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n page 5 of the GR) is sufficient in law to establish entitlement to\n permanent alternative accommodation in the rehab unit especially\n when read withSections 3X(b)and3Yof the Slum Act as also\n certain conditions (notably condition 83) of the Letter of Intent\n itself.10. Specifically, he points out that the MCGM is at no loss. The\n Developer is bound to provide to the MCGM 10,000 sq mts built up\n area as Staff Quarters, and this is over and above the premises that\n are to be constructed for rehabilitation of these 206 persons (among\n others) as permanent alternative rehabilitation accommodation.11. Mr Apte places reliance on the MCGM Circular of 4th\n February 2012 to say that it had been noticed that many workers or\n employees of the MCGM were holding on to the Staff Quarters\n beyond the period of their employment and that this could not be\n permitted.12. In the first place, since we will need to consider the GR and\n Circular and we do not expect the matter to end here, it having\n travelled via Review Petitions at least once to the Supreme Court,\n we will need official translations of the relevant GR and Circulars so\n that these can be accurately quoted in any subsequent order. We are\n prepared to interpret the GR and Circular as they stand but quoting\n them in Marathi would be less than respectful to the Supreme\n Court.13. In any case, for this purpose alone, we would request the\n State Government to ensure that the official translations are alwaysPage 17 of 2010th July 2023::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n made available so that accuracy is not sacrificed in orders of the\n Court especially in contentious matters like these.14. We note Mr Apte's submission that in a detailed judgment of\n this Court delivered by Division Bench on 6th January 2017 in Writ\n Petition No. 957 of 2013, More Jeevan Yashwant and 82 Ors vs\n MCGM and Ors2 and connected matters (also referenced in the\n Division Bench order in DJ Rane, supra), the submission that has\n been made today by the Petitioners was expressly rejected. Mr\n Khandeparkar contests this reading of the Division Bench judgment.\n It is pointed out to us that a Review Petition failed as did a Special\n Leave Petition.15. Mr Apte submits that the Division Bench in More Jeevan\n Yashwant noted that the Supreme Court had deprecated the increase\n in tendency to hold on to Government property. The Supreme\n Court noted the increase in unauthorized occupation of\n Government premises. According to Mr Apte, the Division Bench\n specifically permitted -- and in fact required -- the MCGM to\n proceed against all former employees under Section 105B and\n related provisions of theMumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888("MMC Act"). They were also entitled to recover penalty,\n damages, and compensation. Paragraph 54 of the Division Bench\n judgment is heavily relied on by Mr Apte. In any case, Mr Apte says,\n there was an explicit rejection of the claim being made that the\n Petitioners could continue in occupation of these premises. Mr\n Khandeparkar's submission appears to be that the protection that\n\n 2 2017:BHC-OS:146-DB : 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10101 (2017) 4 Bom\n CR 532.Page 18 of 2010th July 2023::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n sought by the petitioners in More Jeevan Yashwant and which was\n denied was only against the provisions of theMMC Actand in their\n capacities as erstwhile employees of the Municipal Corporation. He\n points to other portions of the very same judgment to say that when\n it came to identification or the conferment of entitlement under the\n provisions ofSlum Actwhether by virtue of holding a Photo Pass,\n Section 3X, Section 3Y or the relevant portions of the Letter of\n Intent, the very same Division Bench judgment said that the entire\n project could proceed according to law under theSlum Act.16. Today, the Petitioners do not claim to be entitled to continue\n in occupation nor to substitute premises in their capacity as\n employees or former employees of the MCGM. What they do\n contend is that they are now protected by the operation of theSlum\n Act, because they have each been issued a Photo Pass. This has\n immediate consequences whether under the GR in question or\n under the statute itself. It simply cannot be that a Photo Pass, issued\n with a specific statutory purpose under theSlum Act, is treated as\n inconsequential or irrelevant for the purposes of slum\n redevelopment.17. The answer to this from Mr Apte (and he does not accept that\n all the Petitioners do indeed have Photo Passes), is that the photo\n passes were nothing more than an administrative convenience to\n prevent persons from trafficking in or transferring the premises that\n they occupied.18. We do not believe these Petitions can be kept pending much\n longer. We need an Affidavit from the MCGM setting out the GRsPage 19 of 2010th July 2023::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 :::18-WP-4284-2023+.DOC\n\n\n\n\n and the specific policy in question applicable to Grade-IV\n employees. The present GR and Circular referred to above are to be\n annexed with official translations. That Affidavit is to be filed and\n served by 21st July 2023. Mr Apte states that the copy of Annexure-\n II will be annexed with the Affidavit.19. A response from the Petitioners is permitted by 4th August\n 2023. We propose to take up the Petitions on 8th August 2023 when\n they will all be listed high on the Supplementary Board.20. Previous orders to continue until the next date.(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)Page 20 of 2010th July 2023::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 20:13:33 ::: |
79a88b7c-8cbe-5ccf-b91b-3b2cfe39918e | court_cases | Himachal Pradesh High CourtYashwant Singh Son Of Shri Ranvir Singh vs State Of on 31 August, 2022Bench:Sabina,Satyen Vaidya1\n\n\n REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA\n\n ON THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022\n BEFORE\n\n\n\n\n .\n HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\n\n\n\n &\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA\n\n\n\n\n\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 342 OF 2021 ALONGWITH\n CONNECTED MATTERS.\n 1. CWP NO. 342 OF 2021\n BETWEEN:-\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. YASHWANT SINGH SON OF SHRI RANVIR SINGH, AGED 42\n YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHAILLA, POST OFFICE PHARAL,\n TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER SCHOOL\n\n NEW IN COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL, MALANDI.\n\n 2. SOM PARKASH SHARMA SON OF SHRI PYARE LAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BROGI POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW),\n HINDI IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,\n KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 3. HITENDER BALI SON OF SHRI TEK CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KACHINGHATI, POST OFFICE PHARAL, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n HISTORY IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n MALANDI.\n\n 4. AISHVARYA DAUGHTER OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KINGAL,\n TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) BIOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, KHANATI SADHOCH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 2\n\n\n 5. ANJANA BHAIK DAUGHTER OF SHRI JR BHAIK,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MADHAWANI,\n TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, KOTGARH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 6. ANITA THAKUR DAUGHTER OF SHRI MINA RAM JARET,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHLI, POST OFFICE BHUTTI,\n TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n NEW) IN HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BHUTTI.\n\n 7. PUNAM BHARDWAJ DAUGHTER OF SHRI KESARI LAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BROGI, POST OFFICE AND\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) IN HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, MALANDI.\n\n 8. ANITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI SHANTI SWAROOP,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANDHARLI, POST OFFICE\n KARASSA, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) IN ECONOMICS IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MALANDI.\n\n 9. SEEMA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI ANUP, RESIDENT OF G II,\n 42, NABHA, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL TUTIKANDI, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 10. SANTOSH NEGI WIFE OF SHRI DEVINDER SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHOLAR,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) IN HINDI, AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MANDAL.\n\n 11. YASHPAL SINGH SON OF LATE SADH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BISHANI, POST OFFICE SOLANG, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) IN\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 3\n\n\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, SOLANG.\n\n 12. RAMESHWAR SINGH SON OF SADH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JAKHROO, POST OFFICE SOLANG, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) IN\n\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, SOLANG.\n\n 13. URMILA CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF KEWAL RAM\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAUHAN, RESIDENT OF HARI NIWAS, BELOW HIMFED\n BUILDING, NEW SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) IN\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PANDRANOO.\n\n 14.\n\n\n RAJINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI KANA SINGH PANAIK,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAEG NENDLI SAINJ, POST OFFICE\n SOLANG, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SOLANG.\n\n 15. VANDNA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI VINOD KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHYALTU, POST OFFICE THANA,\n\n\n SUB TEHSIL JANGLA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN HINDI\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GILTARI.\n\n\n\n\n 16. SARITA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI SANJAY JHOBTA,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALOG, POST OFFICE NANDPUR,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n\n\n\n\n\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SARASWATI NAGAR.\n\n 17. SHANO DEVI SHARMA CARE OF RAMESH KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAROLI, POST OFFICE SHEEL\n VIA JUBBAL, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n IN HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n DHAR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 4\n\n\n 18. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI SALIG RAM SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HATKOTI,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n MATHEMATICS IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SARASWATI NAGAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 19. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI OM PRAKASH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SARASWATI NAGAR, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL, SARASWATI NAGAR.\n\n 20. KUSUM LATA WIFE OF RANJEET SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHAR, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY IN GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHAR.\n\n 21. POONAM SAUHTA WIFE OF HEM CHAND SAUHTA,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHAR, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, DHAR.\n\n\n 22. SUSHMA DEVI DAUGHTER OF CHHAJU RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE NEHNAR, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN HISTORY AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHADI\n RAWAT.\n\n\n\n\n\n 23. GOVIND SINGH SON OF SHRI DEVI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SANSOG, POST OFFICE DHADI RAWAT, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, DHADI RAWAT.\n\n 24. MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SHRI BRIJ LAL\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUJARLI, POST OFFICE\n MANDAL, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 5\n\n\n SANSKRIT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, RATHAL.\n\n 25. CHAMAN SINGH SON OF SHRI SURAT SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BHAKAN, POST OFFICE TURAN, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN POLITICAL\n\n\n\n\n\n SCIENCE IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GILTARI.\n\n 26. UMESH KUMAR SON OF LATE JOGINDER SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MATASA, POST OFFICE JHARAG,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN HINDI,\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,\n JHARAG NAKRARI.\n\n 27.\n\n\n UMESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI GOPI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SIRTHI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, DHAR.\n\n 28. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI PARMANAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE THANA, POST OFFICE MANDAL, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, RATHAL.\n\n 29. LALIT KUMAR SON OF SHRI GIAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHOLAR, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, RATHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 30. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAGAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARTHATA, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NANDPUR.\n\n 31. AMRIT SINGH SON OF TARA CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BADYAR, POST OFFICE NANDPUR, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 6\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NANDPUR.\n\n 32. BALWANT SINGH SON OF SHRI SARDAR SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROHTAN, POST OFFICE MANDAL,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n\n\n\n\n\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MANDAL.\n\n 33. NAVEEN SON OF SHRI RAMESH CHAND MEHTA,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JHARAG,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL JHARAG NAKRARI.\n\n 34.\n\n TEHSIL\n rJUBBAL,to\n PANKAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOTI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SARASWATI NAGAR, POST OFFICE HATKOTI,\n DISTRICT\n\n SCIENCE AT\n SHIMLA,\n\n GOVERNMENT\n HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n POLITICAL SENIOR\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL JHARAG NAKRARI.\n\n 35. HEMLATA WIFE OF SHRI ABBAL SINGH KESTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KATHASU,\n\n\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN HINDI\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,\n RATHAL.\n\n\n\n\n 36. SUDESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI NARAYAN CHAND,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHOLAR,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, RATHAL.\n\n 37. SUDHIR THAKUR SON OF LATE ATTAR SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHOLAR, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, RATHAL.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 7\n\n\n 38. VEENA THAKUR WIFE OF RAKESH CHAUHAN, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE SHALLAN, POST OFFICE PUJARLI-2, TEHSIL\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,\n SARASWATI NAGAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 39. LOKESHWAR SINGH SON OF SHRI KALI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE THANA, POST OFFICE MANDAL, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN POLITICAL\n\n\n\n\n\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, DEEM.\n\n 40. JAGVENDER SINGH THAKUR SON OF LATE SEWAK RAM\n THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAKHOR, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n MANDAL, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n COMMERCE, AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, SARASWATI NAGAR.\n\n 41. YOGINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI CHATTAR SINGH MAJTA,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAMARU, POST OFFICE\n PROUNTHI, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n GEOGRAPHY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n SCHOOL (BOYS) JUBBAL.\n\n 42. NAVEEN SINGH SON OF SHRI SARDAR SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE JAPRACHALI, POST OFFICE JHARAG,\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, JHARAG NAKRARI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 43. RUBINA DAUGHTER OF SHRI BHIM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n PREM HOUSE, LOWER KAITHU, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH 171003, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, SHAKRAH.\n\n 44. SUNITA CHAUHAN WIFE OF SHRI LALIT CHAUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAWAT, POST OFFICE DHAR\n CHANDNA, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 8\n\n\n HISTORY IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, KAINA.\n\n 45. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAI KRISHAN SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THUND, POST OFFICE\n JANEDGHAT, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n\n\n\n\n\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DUBLOO.\n\n 46. SEVAK RAM SON OF SHRI MATHU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE FANEWAT, POST OFFICE KOTI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER IN HINDI AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DUBLOO.\n\n\n\n\n\n 47. KEDAR SINGH SON OF SHRI BAROO RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DOCHI, POST OFFICE MALAT, TEHSIL CHOPAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) IN POLITICAL\n\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MALAT.\n\n 48. SUNIL DUTT SON OF SHRI RELU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHALANIA, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) IN COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RUSLAH.\n\n 49. HUKAM SINGH SON OF SHRI LEHASNU RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE RANDARA, POST OFFICE THANGAR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KEDI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 50. DAVESH CHAND SON OF SHRI AMAR CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KEDI, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LSN.\n ENGLISH IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n MALAT.\n\n 51. DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI BELI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KASHAH, POST OFFICE BAMTA, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) IN\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 9\n\n\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BAMTA.\n\n 52. LOKINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI KIRPA RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KEDI, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n .\n (SCHOOL NEW) IN HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KEDI.\n\n 53. PRIKSHA NEGI WIFE OF SHRI DINESH KUMAR RESIDENT\n LO VILLAGE BODHANA, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER HINDI IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KEDI.\n\n 54. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI HARI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SHATAHWAL, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER SANSKRIT IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MALAT.\n\n 55. KARAM SINGH SON OF SHRI DHIRAJ SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n OF VILLAGE RAMDERA, POST OFFICE TANGAR, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TIKKERI.\n\n\n\n 56. NITESH SON OF SHRI RAI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n RUSLAH, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n\n\n\n\n IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RUSLAH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 57. KAMLESH SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI JAGDISH RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE TIKKERI, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KEDI.\n\n 58. PRAMESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHAGMAL RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TUNGKI, POST OFFICE BHARANU, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RUSLAH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 10\n\n\n 59. PARKASH CHAND SON OF SHRI SHER SINGH RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE TIKKER, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER ECONOMICS IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GAUNTH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 60. PARTAP SINGH SON OF SHRI NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE MANJHOLI, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER HISTORY IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GAUNTH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 61. RAKESH DATRAIK SON OF SHRI SOHAN DATRAIK,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NALI, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER ECONOMICS IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL RUSLAH.\n\n 62. LOKINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI RAMAMNAND CHAUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANDRARA, TEHSIL NERWA\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE IN\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUTHAR.\n\n 63. JAI DUTT SHARMA SON OF SHRI DULA RAM SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUFAR, TEHSIL CHOPAL,\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL RUSLAH.\n\n\n\n\n 64. RAJENDER CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI SR CHAUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BIJMAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n COMMERCE IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL HALAN.\n\n 65. RAJINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI SABLA RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BIJMAL, POST OFFICE BIJMAL, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n THAROCH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 11\n\n\n 66. BALWANT SINGH SON OF SHRI LIAQ RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHARCHARI, POST OFFICE MALAT, TEHSIL\n NERWA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHAMTHA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 67. VINAY THAKUR SON OF SHRI PRAKASH CHAND,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LANGOTH, POST OFFICE AND\n TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL RINJAT.\n\n 68. RAJINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI LAIQ RAM PASRAIK,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RINJAT, POST OFFICE AND\n TEHSIL NERWA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHILLA.\n\n 69. SUSHEEL DAFRAIK SON OF SHRI OM PARAKSH DAFRAIK,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KIRI, POST OFFICE RUSLAH,\n TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, NERWA.\n\n\n 70. YOGESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI PYARE LAL KALANTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUPVI, POST OFFICE PUJARLI-2,\n TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n NEW) IN ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SHEEL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 71. RANJANA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI KANWAR SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAMBALA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n KUTARA, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHEEL.\n\n 72. NAV VIKAS MEHTA SON OF SHRI LAHORI SINGH MEHTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BRALL, POST OFFICE JHARAG,\n TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 12\n\n\n NEW) COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MELTHI.\n\n 73. SOHAN SINGH SON OF SHRI GANGA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KARCHARI, POST OFFICE SHRONTHA, TEHSIL\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n ECONOMICS IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MELTHI.\n\n 74. POONAM PANTA DAUGHTER OF SHRI JAG MOHAN SINGH\n\n\n\n\n\n DUTTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n PAROUNTHI, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) IN ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, DHALLI, SHIMLA.\n\n 75.\n r to\n JAI PRAKASH SHARMA SON OF SHRI TOTA RAM\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGNAL, POST OFFICE\n KIARTOO, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) IN SANSKRIT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MELTHI.\n\n 76. SUBHASH KHIMTA SON OF SHRI HIRA SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE FARAG, POST OFFICE PUJARLI-2, TEHSIL\n\n\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ENGLISH IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PUJARLI NO. 3.\n\n\n\n\n 77. SATISH NAINTA SON OF SHRI ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE TIKKERI, POST OFFICE PUJARLI NO.4,\n TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n NEW) HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PUJARLI.\n\n 78. UMA CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI KRISHAN LAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHANGTA, POST OFFICE\n TIKKAR, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) SANSKRIT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PUJARLI NO. 3.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 13\n\n\n 79. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MANDHARLI, POST OFFICE KARASSA, TEHSIL\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL TIKKAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 80. AMITA CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI CHAIN RAM\n CHAUHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HANSRATI POST\n OFFICE SAMRA, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n\n (SCHOOL NEW) ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL TIKKAR.\n\n 81. PANKAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAZAR, POST OFFICE PUJARLI\n\n\n\n\n\n NO.4, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PUJARLI NO. 4.\n\n 82. SHIV RAJ SON OF SHRI KRISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE THAILI, POST OFFICE THAILI CHAKTI, TEHSIL\n NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THAILI\n\n\n CHAKTI.\n\n 83. GIRJA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHIR BHAGWAN DASS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAINI, POST OFFICE JEORI,\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n\n SOCIOLOGY, AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KINNU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 84. SUMAN KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI MAST RAM,\n RESIDENT OF MANGAT NIWAS, WARD NO.1, CHOPAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS) RAMPUR.\n\n 85. VIJAY THAKUR SON OF SHRI GANGA SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE RANGORI, POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 14\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BADHAL.\n\n 86. LEELA DEVI DAUGHTER OF MANGAL SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KATHMI, POST OFFICE BONDA, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURERE IN SOCIOLOGY AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JEORI.\n\n 87. RITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI HARJEET SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MASHNOO,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JEORI.\n\n 88. BOVEL LAL SON OF SHRI KAMP LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE DARSHAL, POST OFFICE TAKLECH, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THAILI\n CHAKTI.\n\n\n 89. ANITA CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI TARA CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NANASERI, POST OFFICE AND\n TEHSIL NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THAILI\n CHAKTI.\n\n 90. SUDERSHAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI GIAN CHAND,\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NIRATH,\n TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHARGA\n\n\n\n\n\n 91. DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI DEVI DASS RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SARAHAN.\n\n 92. RAVI SHARMA SON OF SHRI DEVI DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 15\n\n\n POLICE SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL NIRMAND, KULLU.\n\n 93. SUSHMA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI HIMMAT SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DARAN, POST OFFICE DOFDA,\n TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL\n\n\n\n\n\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, SARAHAN.\n\n 94. PRAKASH CHAND SON OF SHRI TEJ RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n SAURA AAGE, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n POLICE SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KASHOLI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 95. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHAG CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KATAHAR, POST OFFICE TANDI, TEHSIL\n NITHAR DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SARHAR.\n\n 96. AGYA DUTT SON OF SHRI RATTAN DEV, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE RALLU, POST OFFICE RAMPUR, TEHSIL\n NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER SANSKRIT, AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHARGA.\n\n 97. PRATIBHA BHALUNI SON OF SHRI DHARAM SAIN,\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF SHAH POST OFFICE GAURA, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY, IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHARGA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 98. SEEMA MEHTA SON OF SHRI M.R. MEHTA, RESIDENT OF\n SONI BUILDING, CHUHA BAGH, RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER MATHEMATICS IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL NOGLI.\n\n 99. KANCHAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI INDER LAL GUPTA,\n RESIDENT OF BIST NIWAS, MAIN BAZAAR, RAMPUR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 16\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER SOCIOLOGY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NOGLI.\n\n 100. ANISHA CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI KEHAR SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KARASSA,\n TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n\n\n\n\n\n IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KARASA.\n\n 101. DINESH SINGH SON OF SHRI JAI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE ARAHAL, POST OFFICE AND\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n COMMERCE IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BALSA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 102. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MANDHARLI, POST OFFICE KARASSA, TEHSIL\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS)\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 103. VIRENDER THAKUR SON OF SRI GAIN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE MUMCHHARA, POST OFFICE SAMOLI\n TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LOWERKOTI.\n\n\n\n\n 104. KALPNA CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI AMIT CHAUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF CHAUHAN NIWAS, DHANDA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n TOTU, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n OKHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 105. PROMILA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI BRAHAM DASS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHADROUN, POST OFFICE\n HAWAN, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL HAWAN, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 17\n\n\n 106. RAMESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI INDER LAL, RESIDENT OF\n 55/1, WARD NO.5, TEHSIL SUNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SUNI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 107. PRATIMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI DHANI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n POST OFFICE TOTU, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KAINA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 108. SANJEEV KUMAR SON O SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SUNI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, GUMMA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 109. BHUVNESHWAR SINGH SON OF SHRI DURGA DASS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAROGRA, TEHSIL SUNNI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, BANUNA.\n\n 110. DALEEP KUMAR SON OF LEKH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DEOLA, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL, KHATNOL.\n\n 111. PRAKASH VERMA SON OF SHRI TEK RAM VERMA, HOUSE\n\n\n\n\n NO. 104, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL\n\n\n\n\n\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, KARYALI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 112. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI TULA RAM KAUNDAL,\n RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 122, VILLAGE KARYALI,\n TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARYALI.\n\n 113. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHAGAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BATAL, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 18\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, JUNGA.\n\n 114. ASHWANI VERMA SON OF SHRI DEVI DASS VERMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARORT, POST OFFICE\n BASANTPUR, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BASANTPUR.\n\n 115. SURINDER MOHAN SON OF SHRI KRISHAN CHAND,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHARECH, POST OFFICE HIMRI,\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HIMRI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 116. SURENDER SHARMA SON OF SHRI ANANT RAM SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMOLTHA, POST OFFICE\n GHOOND TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n HIMRI.\n\n 117. ARUNA MEHTA DAUGHTER OF SHRI AMOLAK RAM\n MEHTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAHU, POST OFFICE\n THAROLA, TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, KOTI.\n\n\n\n\n 118. RAMA CHANDEL WIFE OF INDER MOKHTA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KYARI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL, SAINTARI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 119. SAVITA THAKUR DAUGHTER OF ROOP SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KHOOD KAKHROL, POST OFFICE FAGU,\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAWLA\n KIAR.\n\n 120. RAKESH CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI JAGDISH CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GALEHA,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 19\n\n\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAWLA\n KIAR.\n\n 121. VIKAS SON OF ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n .\n CHAMB, POST OFFICE DEORI-KHANETI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DEORI\n KHANETI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 122. MONIKA DAUGHTER OF BALAK RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SABLOG, POST OFFICE PHARAL, TEHSIL\n KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER SANSKRIT AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHASU.\n\n 123. SATISH KUMAR SON OF SHRI ATMA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHANGVI, POST OFFICE KOKU NALA, TEHSIL\n\n KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAGHI.\n\n 124. ARTI DAUGHTER OF SHRI OM PARKASH SAREEN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANGVI, POST OFFICE KOKU\n\n\n NALA, TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BAGHI.\n\n\n\n\n 125. SUNIL DUTT SON OF SHRI SURAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BAGHI, TEHSIL KOTKHAI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAGHI.\n\n 126. RAJENDER JUSTA SON OF SH GIAN SINGH JUSTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAREON, POST OFFICE PANOG,\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KIARI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 20\n\n\n 127. DINESH JUSTA SON OF SHRI CHITER BHANU JUSTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANOG,\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY,\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KIARI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 128. ARCHANA CHAUHAN WIFE OF ANURAG CHAUHAN,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHALLI, POST OFFICE IARI,\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MUL-\n\n\n\n\n\n KOTI.\n\n 129. ANIL CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI SR CHAUHAN, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE JAHARU, POST OFFICE BAKHOL, TEHSIL\n KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHASU.\n\n 130. MAMTA MANSEIK WIFE OF BHAG CHAND CHATRA,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHAROLI, POST OFFICE HIMRI,\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHASU.\n\n 131. KAPIL DEV SON OF TARA CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n BAI, POST OFFICE BHAIRI, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHASU.\n\n\n\n\n 132. NANDANI KANWAR DAUGHTER OF SARDAR SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARI POST OFFICE KHANETI,\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n NEW) ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MAKHAR.\n\n 133. DEEPAK MEHTA SON OF SHRI MR MEHTA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DUNKHAR, POST OFFICE GHOOND, TEHSIL\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GHOOND.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 21\n\n\n 134. SURESH KUMAR SON OF LATE MATH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LOHALA, POST OFFICE GHOOND, TEHSIL\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) HISTORY, AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GHOOND.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 135. SUBHADRA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF LATE MATHU RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHARAIL, POST OFFICE\n GHOOND, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GHOOND.\n\n 136. NARENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI BALAK RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE HALAI, POST OFFICE DEHA, TEHSIL THEOG,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DEHA.\n\n 137. PRABHAT KIRAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI BALDEV SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KEDI, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT\n\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n DURGAPUR.\n\n\n\n 138. LAIQ RAM SHARMA SON OF SHRI GAURI DUTT SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHARANA, POST OFFICE\n BHARANA, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) SANSKRIT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GADAKUFRI.\n\n 139. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI HIRA MANI SHARMA,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHARANA\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GADAKUFRI.\n\n 140. RAVINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI HITENDER PRAKAH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAEG DODRA, POST OFFICE\n DHARAMPUR (MADHAN), TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 22\n\n\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHARAMPUR (MADHAN).\n\n 141. DINESH SUMAN SON OF SHRI DEVI RAM SUMAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROUHTOO, POST OFFICE SHARI-\n MATIANA, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n\n (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHORI.\n\n 142. NARAIN DUTT SON OF SHRI SITA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE MANAN, POST OFFICE SHILAROO, TEHSIL\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MAHORI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 143. JAGDISH CHAND SON OF SHRI BHAGWAN DASS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARUTH, POST OFFICE KIAR,\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL MAHORI.\n\n 144. SANJAY BHARDWAJ SON OF SHRI LAIQ RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BALAN, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHORI.\n\n\n\n\n 145. LAXMI SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI NARAIN DUTT,\n RESIDENTOF VILLAGE MANAN, POST OFFICE SHILAROO,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL RIAG JUBBAR.\n\n 146. SHANTA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI OM PRAKASH PANDEY,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKARI, POST OFFICE JAIS,\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SAROG.\n\n 147. MEENA CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI JAI LAL\n CHAUHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SADHRARA, POST\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 23\n\n\n OFFICE AND TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) MUSIC, AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL, THEOG.\n\n 148. ANITA VERMA WIFE OF SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR VERMA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHARMALA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n MAHORI, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MATIANA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 149. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI VIDYA SAGAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KATHIAYARA, POST OFFICE KIARTOO,\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,\n DHARAMPUR (MADHAN).\n\n 150. SANDEEP KUMAR SON OF SHRI HET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE TIKKERI, POST OFFICE JAIS, TEHSIL THEOG,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) SANSKRIT AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n DHARAMPUR (MADHAN).\n\n\n 151. PRATAP SINGH SON OF LATE KESU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NARI, POST OFFICE BHARANU, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SHILLA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 152. RAVINDER DUTT SON OF SHRI DHARAM CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANDOKHARI, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n BHARANU, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHILLA.\n\n 153. NIRMALA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI BHAWANI SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIDANA, POST OFFICE BHARANU,\n TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHILLA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 24\n\n\n 154. SANGITA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI KEWAL RAM AND\n WIFE OF SHRI SUNDHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n EKTA BIHAR COLONY, RANI KA BAGH, NAHAN, HOUSE\n NO. 321/3, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJHAL.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 155. RAMA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI SANJEEV VERMA, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE SANANA, POST OFFICE SANDHU, TEHSIL\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY IN\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SANDHU.\n\n 156. DALIP SINGH SON OF SHRI S.R. CHANDEL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DARGHOT, POST OFFICE BAGRI, TEHSIL\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, BAGAIN.\n\n 157. RAKESH SHARMA SON OF SHRI BANSI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE TIKKARI, POST OFFICE JAIS, TEHSIL THEOG,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) CHEMISTRY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAINJ.\n\n 158. SURESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHATTAN BHAJOND TEHSIL\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, LUDHIANA.\n\n\n\n\n 159. DEV RAJ SON OF SHRI SAHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n SHILLAHAN, POST OFFICE KORAG, TEHSIL SANGRAH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER CHEMISTRY AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HARIPURDHAR.\n\n 160. DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI DEVI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DAHAR, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SANGRAH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LUDHIANA.\n\n 161. JAI PRAKASH SON OF SHRI MANGAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG KASLOH, POST OFFICE MANSHOLI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 25\n\n\n KUPVI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,\n HARIPURDHAR.\n\n 162. BHARAT SINGH SON OF SHRI HEERA SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n .\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KATHWAR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KAMROO, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, LUDHIANA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 163. RAJENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAM NATH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE PANJAH, POST OFFICE KORAG, SUB TEHSIL\n HARIPURDHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,\n\n\n\n\n\n LUDHIANA.\n\n 164. RADHA DEVI WIFE OF BHARAT SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG TIKRI DASAKNA, POST OFFICE KORAG, TEHSIL\n\n SANGRAH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHIRPUR.\n\n 165. NEELAM DEVI WIFE OF CHANDER PRAKASH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DINGRI GHIRNI, POST OFFICE MALHOTI,\n\n\n TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LUDHIANA.\n\n\n\n\n 166. KAMAL RAJ SON OF SHRI BASTI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SAIR, POST OFFICE AND SUB TEHSIL\n HARIPURDHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI, AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n HARIPURDHAR.\n\n 167. ASHWANI KUMAR SON OF JEET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND SUB-TEHSIL HARIPURDHAR,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, HARIPURDHAR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 26\n\n\n 168. DALIP KUMAR THAKUR SON OF SHRI DURGA SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAINA, POST OFFICE RANVI\n (TUTU), TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, SHARGAON.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 169. YASHWANT SINGH SON OF SHRI MADAN SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SHILLA,\n TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MILLA.\n\n 170. NEELAM KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI CHARAN DASS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TIMBI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, MILLA.\n\n 171. SANGEETA WIFE OF SHRI RAMESH CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SHILLAI, TEHSIL\n\n SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHILLAI.\n\n\n 172. DHARAM SINGH SON OF SHRI THOLIYA RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE MUNDIAR, POST OFFICE KANDO BHATNOL,\n TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANDLI\n DHADAS.\n\n\n\n\n\n 173. NARAYAN SINGH SON OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATNOL, VILLAGE AND POST\n\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE KANDO BHATNOL, TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANDLI DHADAS.\n\n 174. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI OM DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHARCEH, POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SARAHAN.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 27\n\n\n 175. KULDEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI SUKH DEV SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAKOL, (MAGROLI SHAKOL)\n POST OFFICE BAGHTHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BECHAR KA BAG.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 176. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF BABU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHANHLOG, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BECHAR KA BAG.\n\n 177. SURENDER MOHAN SON OF LAXMI CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PALNU, POST OFFICE KOTLA MOLAR, TEHSIL\n DADAHU, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, BECHAR\n KA BAG. r\n 178. UPENDER SINGH SON OF BHOOP SINGH, CARE OF\n BURKHA RAM, 1385/5, H.B. COLONY, NAHAN, DISTRICT\n\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KOLAWALA BHOOD.\n\n\n 179. ARCHNA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI MOHIL CHAUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANKALA, POST OFFICE\n SHAMBHUWALA, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL VIKRAM BAGH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 180. ASHA SHARMA WIFE OF MANOJ SHARMA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE WASNI, POST OFFICE WASNI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL APRON.\n\n 181. MUNISH KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAGDISH RAM SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 3114/12, JAIN GALI, NAHAN,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER PHYSICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAMPUR BHARAPUR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 28\n\n\n 182. NAVEEN KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF HOUSE NO. 161/12, MOHALLA MASANPURA, NAHAN,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BARMAPAPRI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 183. ROSI VERMA WIFE OF MANISH TANDAN, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n HOUSE NO. 309/10, KIRPAL SHILLA DEVI NAGAR,\n PAONTA SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL BHAROG BANERI.\n\n 184. SHALINI THAKUR WIFE OF SHRI RAKESH THAKUR,\n RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 53/1 VILLAGE DINGER KINNER\n (199) PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KIARI.\n\n 185. ANJANA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI RAKESH MOHAN\n\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 48/5 MOHALLA\n AMARPUR, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SURLA.\n\n 186. ARCHANA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI BHAGWANT\n\n\n PRASAD, RESIDENT OF RANI KA BAG, NEAR CARMEL\n SCHOOL, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n PANJAHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 187. BHARTI DEVI WIFE OF AJAY KUAMR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NOHRADHAR,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n NOHRADHAR.\n\n 188. RAM LAL SON OF SHRI BALDEV SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHALAN, POST OFFICE LANA CHETA TEHSIL\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 29\n\n\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 189. ANITA KUMARI WIFE OF SHASHI PAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NOHRADHAR,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL NOHRADHAR.\n\n 190. BHRAMA NAND SON OF SHRI KULANAND RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG THONGA, POST OFFICE DEVNA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL NOHRADHAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 191. NIRMAL KUMAR SON OF JAGMOHAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILALGE BHUTTI, POST OFFICE BOGDHAR, TEHSIL\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BOGDHAR.\n\n 192. MAINA WIFE OF BALRAJ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n RANGORI, POST OFFICE SARHAN, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHAENA.\n\n 193. VIJAY KUMARI WIFE OF HEM RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BOGDHAR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHAENA.\n\n 194. SUNITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI MAST RAM KASHYAP,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANOG, POST OFFICE DEOTHI\n MAJHGAON, TEHSIL RAJGARH. DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PGT\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DEOTHI MAJHGAON.\n\n 195. SARITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHANKAR DASS, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DEOTHI-MAJHGAON, TEHSIL RAJGARH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 30\n\n\n POSTED AS PGT (HISTORY) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DEOTHI-MAJHGAON.\n\n 196. SUCHETA PANWAR WIFE OF SHRI NIGAM SINGLA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JANOT, POST OFFICE DINGER\n TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, JAIHAR.\n\n 197. CHANDERLEKHA WIFE OF ARUN SEWAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DEVI KOTHI, POST OFFICE NAINA TIKKER,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS)\n SARAHAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 198. KULDEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI SWAROOP SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 722, BY PASS SARAHAN,\n TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PGT ECONOMICS AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, GAGAL\n SHIKORE.\n\n 199. REENA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI DEVINDER KANWAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAMOON, POST OFFICE\n KARGANU, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LSN.\n POLITICAL SCIECNE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SHARGAON.\n\n\n\n\n 200. ANJANA KUMARI DIAGHTER OF SHRI RAMA NAND\n CHAUHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATOGRA, POST\n\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE RARUGHATI, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMIC AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHARGAON.\n\n 201. SUNITA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LANA ROW, POST OFFICE\n KARGANOON SANORA, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SHARGAON.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 31\n\n\n 202. HARI SINGH SON OF SHIR BUDH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KANOYALA NICHLA, POST OFFICE GUNDOHA\n KLAN, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) ECONOMICS AT GMSSS RAMSHEHAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 203. MEENA DEIV DAUGHTER OF SHRI KRISHAN LAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAEG KOSHI, POST OFFICE AND\n TEHSIL RAMSHEHAR, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) CHEMISTRY AT GMSSS RAMSHEHAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 204. KEWAL KISHOR SON OF SHRI BIAS DEV, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MANJHIAR, TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT\n HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) GMSSS RAMSHEHAR.\n\n\n r to\n 205. JASWINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI BABU RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KANOYALA UPERLA, POST OFFICE POLE-DA-\n KHALA, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL MITTIAN.\n\n 206. JAGDISH CHAND SON OF SHRI RATTAN CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATTAL, POST OFFICE RERU\n\n\n TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MITTIAN.\n\n\n\n\n 207. BALBIR SINGH SON OF SHRI HET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NAND TEHSIL NALAGARH,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) BIOLOGY AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MITTIAN.\n\n 208. HARISH KUMAR SON OF SOM NATH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GALOT, TEHSIL NALAGARH,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) CHEMISTRY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SWARGHAT.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 32\n\n\n 209. JASVIR SINGH SON OF SHRI NAGINDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAUNTA, POST OFFICE PATTA\n MEHLOG, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PATTA MEHLOG.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 210. GIAN CHAND SON OF SHRI KRISHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHARMANA TEHSIL\n RAMSHEHAR, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL NAND.\n\n 211. VIJENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI DINESH KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LNA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n MANLOGKALAN, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DIGGAL.\n\n 212. SUNITA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI LALIT KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE BEHLI, POST OFFICE DHEOLA, TEHSIL\n KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n SCHOOL MAMLIGH.\n\n 213. DR. SARSWATI DEVI WIFE OF SHRI DESH RAJ, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE URNI, TEHSIL NICHAR,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) MUSIC AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS)\n KUNIHAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 214. MEENA KUMARI WIFE OF VINOD KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHAWANIPUR, POST OFFICE BADHALAG,\n TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GOELA.\n\n 215. KANCHAN SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALUJHANDA, POST OFFICE\n MANDHALA TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 33\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BADDI.\n\n 216. MAMTA WIFE OF SHRI ANUPREET SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HARIPUR SANDHOLI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n .\n BADDI DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BADDI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 217. PREM DEVI WIFE OF SHRI ISHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KISHANPURA, POST OFFICE GURUMAJRA,\n TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL KHERA NANOWAL.\n\n 218. NARINDER PAL SON OF SHRI PARMANAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAHERI, POST OFFICE KILLIAN, TEHSIL\n\n NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, DABHOTA.\n\n 219. ANUPAMA WIFE OF SHRI GURNAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n VILLAGE RAUTANWALA POST OFFICE LODHIMAJRA,\n TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL, PARWANOO.\n\n\n\n\n\n 220. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI PADAM DEV RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KISHANGARH POST OFFICE AND SUB-TEHSIL\n KRISHANGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n PHYSICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PARWANOO.\n\n 221. SAROJ KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI CHANDERKANT,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JIGARA, POST OFFICE\n KAKKARHATTI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTBEJA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 34\n\n\n 222. MOHINDER PAUL SON OF SHRI ATMA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PRATHA, TEHSIL KASAULI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PRATHA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 223. BALWINDER THAKUR SON OF SHRI HEM RAJ, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE PANIHAR, POST OFFICE JABLI, TEHSIL\n KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PRATHA.\n\n 224. LAL CHAND SON OF SHRI KIRPU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BANIYA (GHARNO) POST OFFICE BAKHALAG,\n TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DARWA.\n\n 225. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAGAT RAM, RESIDENTOF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GHARSI, TEHSIL KASAULI,\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DAGSHAI.\n\n\n 226. SHIKHA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI BABU RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BADHALAG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 227. BABU RAM SON OF SHRI DAULAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GHAROT, POST OFFICE BASADHAR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KUTHAR.\n\n 228. YAJUWINDER KAUR WIFE OF SHRI HARDEEP SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANWANWALI, POST OFFICE\n BARUNA, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 35\n\n\n (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BARUNA.\n\n 229. KULJINDER KAUR WIFE OF SHRI KAMALJEET SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF KALYANPUR, POST OFFICE BARUNA,\n TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n NEW) COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BARUNA.\n\n 230. JASWINDER KAUR WIFE OF SHRI KUNDAN SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASOWAL, POST OFFICE\n JAGOHAN, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BARUNA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 231. REKHA DEVI WIFE OF SHIR JITENDER SINGH RANA,\n RESIDENT OF WARD N. 2, NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n (SCHOOL NEW) COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJEHRA.\n\n 232. SUBHASH CHAND, SON OF SHRI DAMODAR DASS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PHAINTHALI, POST OFFICE\n BARUNA, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GULLARWALA.\n\n\n\n\n 233. GURDEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI GARIB DASS, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARUNA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL BAHAL, BILASPUR.\n\n 234. BALI RAM SON OF SHRI AMRIT LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHUWAI POST OFFICE SWAHAN, TEHSIL\n SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SWAHAN.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 36\n\n\n 235. NARENDER SINGH SON OF KANAHIYA RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE NANYANA DHUNDAN, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHUNDAN.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 236. SATYA PAL SON OF HARI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n RANOH, POST OFFICE HANUMAN BADOG, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) MATHEMATICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NANGAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 237. JAI PRAKASH SON OF LEKH RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE DHUNDAN, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SARYANJ.\n\n 238. SUMAN DEVI DAUGHTER OF RAM DITTU, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHUNDAN, TEHSIL ARKI,\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHUNDAN.\n\n 239. AMAR SINGH SON OF SHRI BALA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SAYARI, POST OFFICE DHUNDAN, TEHSIL ARKI,\n\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NANGAL.\n\n\n\n\n 240. LEELA SHANKAR SON OF KIRPA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PATTI, POST OFFICE MANJYAT, TEHSIL ARKI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANGAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 241. KARAM SINGH SON OF PURAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE ASSLOO POST OFFICE BUGHAR, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANGAL.\n\n 242. SANTOSH DAUGHTER OF KIRPA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAHLODOG, POST OFFICE BASANTPUR, TEHSIL\n ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 37\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY, AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHUMTI.\n\n 243. RAM SWAROOP SON OF SHRI HARI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAYARI, POST OFFICE MATERNNI, TEHSIL\n ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANI\n MATERNI.\n\n 244. RAJAN KUMARI WIFE OF DR. D.R. BHARDWAJ, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF BHARDWAJ NIWAS, VASUNDHRA COLONY, VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE SHAMTI, TEHSIL SOLAN, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL, GAURA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 245. POONAM BHALLA WIFE OF SHRI RAJESH VERMA,\n RESIDENT OF TARA NIWAS, VILLAGE SERI, POST OFFICE\n GALANAG, TEHSIL SOLAN, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL GAURA.\n\n 246. KUSUMLATA WIFE OF ANURAG AWASTHI, RESIDENT OF\n HOUSE NO. 07/11, AWASTHI NIWAS, VRINDABAN\n\n\n COLONY, DAMROG ROAD, SOLAN, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS) SOLAN.\n\n\n\n\n 247. VIRENDER KUMAR SON OF LATE DHANI RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KARGANOO SANOURA,\n TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n NEW) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GAURA.\n\n 248. ANITA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI NEEL KAMAL, RESIDENT\n OF JHANGAN, POST OFFICE CHHOGTALI, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GAURA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 38\n\n\n 249. SANJAY BHARDWAJ SON OF SHRI B.R. BHARDWAJ,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JUNI (NALA) POST OFFICE FAGU,\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHAIL (SOLAN).\n\n\n\n\n .\n 250. SAVITA SOOD DAUGHTER OF KAPIL SOOD RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE UOH, POST OFFICE TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JAMNI-GOPALPUR BLOCK\n\n\n\n\n\n MANDI.\n\n 251. UMA MAHESHWAR SON OF MANSA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG PYOTHA, POST OFFICE SHALAGHAT, TEHSIL\n ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GHANAGUGHAT.\n\n 252. LAJJA KUMARI WIFE OF CHANDER PAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE URLA, TEHSIL PADHAR,\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAROT, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 253. RAJAT THAKUR SON OF SHRI KESAR SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE CHAPNU, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 254. RAKESH SINGH SON OF SHRI MOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE BANWAR KALAN, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n DHARAMPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n CHEMISTRY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DHARAMPUR.\n\n 255. HEERA LAL SON OF SHRI BRIJ LAL RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PARLI, POST OFFICE KHOLA NAL, TEHSIL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GSSS\n THALOUT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 39\n\n\n 256. DEVI SINGH SON OF SURAJ MANI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE BATHRI, TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATHERI, MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 257. SHEELA WIFE OF CHATTAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NANDI, TEHSIL CHACHYOT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL TAROUR, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 258. GAURI DUTT SON OF SHRI PREM SUKH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE CHANDESH, POST OFFICE GAHAR, TEHSIL\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JAMNI,\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 259. NARENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI BELI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MAHADEV, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SINAJI.\n\n 260. RAKSHA WIFE OF DEEP KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE GHRI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NIHRI.\n\n 261. DAYA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF KAHAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE KHILRA, POST OFFICE MERAMASIT, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE, AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GURKATHA.\n\n 262. HARI CHAND SON OF MUNSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BADI, POST OFFICE DHAWAL, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 40\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY, AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATWARA.\n\n 263. SOHAN LAL SON OF SHRI JOR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GAGAN, POST OFFICE GURAN, TEHSL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BALICHOWKI,\n\n 264. SARLA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI BASANT SINGH THAKUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAMBLED, POST OFFICE\n BAHANU, TEHSIL BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n SANSKRIT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KANED.\n\n\n\n\n\n 265. PROMILA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI SANJAY BHARDWAJ,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARWAN, POST OFFICE CHOWK,\n TEHSIL BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DEHAR.\n\n 266. MEENA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI PARMANAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BHIURA, POST OFFICE KUMMI, TEHSIL\n BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GHASNOO.\n\n 267. THAKUR DASS SON OF SHRI RAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE JARAL, POST OFFICE JUJAHAN, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JAI DEVI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 268. DAYA KAUSHAL DAUGHTER OF HARI KRISHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHURAG,\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHUNAG.\n\n 269. RAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI LALA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE RARU, POST OFFICE JUJAHAN, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 41\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BALAG.\n\n 270. PRITAM SINGH SON OF SHRI RAGHU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KUTTLI, POST OFFICE CHURADH, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BALAG.\n\n 271. BANTA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI MAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE RADAHAN, POST OFFICE URLA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n THALTUKHOD.\n\n\n\n\n\n 272. RAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI NAGESHWARI DEVI, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE SAHAL, POST OFFICE KUNNU, TEHSIL\n PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHAR.\n\n 273. RAJ KUMAR SON OF TEK CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n PABO, POST OFFICE JHAMEHAR, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER SANSKRIT\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PADHAR.\n\n 274. NAG PAL SON OF SHRI SANJU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KUNNU, TEHSIL PADHAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 275. PREETI RAWAT WIFE OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE TINU, POST OFFICE KALONG, TEHSIL\n KEYLONG, DISTRICT LAHUL AND SPIRI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER BIOLOGY,\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHAR.\n\n 276. KUSAM KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PURANA\n BAZAAR, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 42\n\n\n ENGLISH GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n (BOYS), SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 277. VINOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI MANGOO RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE MAJHIATH, POST OFFICE BALHARA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n .\n BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOWK\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 278. SUNITA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JAMETH,\n TEHSIL BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n KASHMAILA, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 279. SAMSHER SINGH SON OF SHRI ROOP LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PADHYAN, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n\n BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOT HATLI,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 280. CHATTAR SINGH SON OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n OF VILLAGE NAHARLA, POST OFFICE CHOWK, TEHSIL\n BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE,\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOWK,\n\n\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 281. HARBANSH SINGH SON OF SHRI RAM SARAN, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE NAHARLA, POST OFFICE CHOWK, TEHSIL\n BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAJHIATH,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 282. RAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI NIKA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE ANDHRARA, POST OFFICE CHOWK, TEHSIL\n BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOWK,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 43\n\n\n\n 283. JEEVAN SINGH SON OF SHRI SIDHU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KIGHAS, POST OFFICE PANARSA, TEHSIL AUT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANARSA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 284. TAPLU RAM SON OF SHRI TEJ RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MAJAUN, POST OFFICE KHUHAN, TEHSIL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHUHAN,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 285. CHAMPA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI PADAM DEV, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE LATHERI, POST OFFICE KUNAN, TEHSIL\n BALI CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI, AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHUHAN,\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 286. BHUPENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI SHER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJAWN, POST OFFICE KUNAN,\n TEHSIL BALI CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KHUHAN, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 287. KRISHANA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI CHAMAN LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE CHELI, POST OFFICE PADWAHEN, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n TRAIMBALI, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 288. MANOHAR LAL SON OF SHRI PURNANAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NANDI, TEHSIL CHACHYOT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAROA MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 44\n\n\n 289. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF SATYA PAUL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE HARLYAN, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE, AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n TRIFALGHAT, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 290. SURENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI JAWAHAR SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROSA, POST OFFICE PANJALAG,\n TEHSIL LAD BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KHDIDDI.\n\n 291. BHAGMAL SON OF SHRI DAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KHADIHAR, POST OFFICE THARA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PANJALAG.\n\n 292. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI UDHAM CHAND, RESIDENT\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BASONA, TEHSIL LAD\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJALAG.\n\n\n\n 293. SUNITA THAKUR WIFE OF DEVENDER CHOUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SAINTHAL,\n TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n ECONOMICS AT GSSS, PANJALAG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 294. KUMARI ANITA WIFE OF SANJAY KUAMR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG CHULLA, POST OFFICE TULLDI, TEHSIL LAD\n\n\n\n\n\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJALAG.\n\n 295. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI DHARAM SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DROB, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL LAD\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJALAG.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 45\n\n\n 296. AJAY SHARMA SON OF SHRI ISHWAR DASS SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AHJOO,\n TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED PGT POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n MATROO.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 297. DEEPAK SON OF SHRI BHAGAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAHLI, POST OFFICE KUTHERA, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PGT POLITICAL\n\n\n\n\n\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MAKRERI.\n\n 298. RAMESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI HARI SINGH BHANDARI,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARUHI, POST OFFICE BHARADI,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PGT HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL. NAUHLI.\n\n 299. PRAMOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAGDISH CHANDER,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DRUBBAL,\n\n TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PGT ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DRUBBAL.\n\n\n 300. SHANTA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI SUKH RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AHJOO,\n TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PGT HINDI AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MATROO.\n\n\n\n\n\n 301. KHEM RAJ SON OF SHRI KARAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SARTAYOLA, POST OFFICE MAHUNAG, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MAINDHHI, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 302. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI MAYA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MAROGAL, POST OFFICE KATWACHI, SUB\n TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 46\n\n\n ECONMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BHANTHAL.\n\n 303. PREM KUMAR SON OF SHRI CHIRANJI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHAGOG, POST OFFICE CHOURIDHAR, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SAINJ BAGRA, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 304. PADAM NABH SON OF SHRI SHAKTI DHAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KHANORA POST OFFICE BHANTHAL, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL BAKHROT, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 305. ISHWAR DASS SON OF GIAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE BANOG POST OFFICE JHUNGI, TEHSIL NIHRI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHUNGI,\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n 306. VIRENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOTU RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE PUNAN, POST OFFICE NANKHARI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHUNGI, KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 307. UTTAM CHAND SON OF SHRI LACHHMI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLGE SHAYA, POST OFFICE JHUNGI, TEHSIL NIHRI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JAHAL,\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 308. PAWAN REKHA DAUGHTER OF NAND LAL, RESIDENT OF\n BHUNDAL, POST OFFICE KATWACHI, SUB TEHSIL\n PANGNA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 47\n\n\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KATWACHI.\n\n 309. CHIRANJI LAL SON OF SHRI DURGA DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHHUDU, POST OFFICE CHOURIDHAR, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SAINJ BAGRA, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 310. ANKUSH THAKUR SON OF SHRI SURENDER SINGH\n THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANDHA KUFARI, POST\n OFFICE PRISSA, TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PRESSI, KARSOG, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 311. BHAG CHAND SON OF SHRI PARAS RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE KANDHI, POST OFFICE PRESSI, TEHSIL NIHRI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PRESSI, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 312. CHHAYAL SINGH SON OF JAI KISHAN, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE HOUN, POST OFFICE CHHATRI, TEHSIL\n THUNAG, DISTRICT MADI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n MEHANRIDHAR, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 313. KAMLA DEVI DAUGHTER OF PANNA LAL, RESIDENT OF\n THAKUR THANA, POST OFFICE SOMA KOTHI, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n HINDI, AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SHARSHAN, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 314. DALIP SINGH SON OF SHRI DHYAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RISSA, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 48\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) BIOLOGY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL B.C.\n THACHI.\n\n 315. PRADESH RAJ SON OF SHRI CHANDU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHADERWAR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BHADERWAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH.\n\n 316. RISHI KUMAR SON OF SHRI AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE HAWANI, POST OFFICE MASERAN, TEHSIL\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n CHEMISTRY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL, THONA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 317. RAM LAL SON OF SHRI RANCHU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE KARNAL, POST OFFICE THONA, TEHSIL\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL THONA.\n\n 318. DESH RAJ SON OF SHRI PARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n KALOHDHAR, POST OFFICE THONA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TIKKER.\n\n 319. MANOHAR LAL SON OF SHRI BASANT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAEG KALOHDHAR, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RISSA.\n\n 320. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI SUKH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHOURI, POST OFFICE THONA, TEHSIL\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 49\n\n\n COMMERCE, AT GMSSS MANDAJ, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 321. SANJEEVAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI HEM RAJ, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE CHORI, POST OFFICE THONA, TEHSIL\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MORLA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 322. SMT. INDU BALA DAUGHTER OF SHRI CHAND PRAKASH\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BRANG,\n TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL, MORLA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 323. THAKUR DASS SON OF SHRI SHIV RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE BITHERI, POST OFFICE KATWACHI, SUB TEHSIL\n PANGNA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KATWACHI.\n\n\n 324. GULAB SINGH SON OF SHRI SURENDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KYARI, POST OFFICE AND\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SERI BUNGALOW.\n\n\n\n\n\n 325. MOHINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI MANGAT RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHANERA,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SHANKAR DEHRA.\n\n 326. RATTAN SINGH SON OF SHRI LEELA DHAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHATRARI, POST OFFICE BHANTHAL, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 50\n\n\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SERI BUNGALOW.\n\n 327. SWAYAM PRAKASH SON OF SHRI DAKHU RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE PATTI, POST OFFICE JASSAL, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL JASSAL.\n\n 328. UMESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI HEM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE JAMODHAR POST OFFICE JASSAL, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SHAKRA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 329. UTTAM SINGH SON OF SHRI NARAYAN, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PAJAIN, TEHSIL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJAIN, SARAJ-2.\n\n 330. KAMLESH KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI SONAM DORJE,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DOBHI,\n\n\n TEHSIL MANALI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n COMMERCE AT GSS.. PANJAIN, SARAJ-2.\n\n\n\n\n 331. RITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI SHER SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MOOLING, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KEYLONG, DISTRICT LAHUL & SPITI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) CHEMISTRY, AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJAIN SARAJ-2.\n\n 332. HIRA SINGH SON OF SHRI TELGI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DALI, POST OFFICE PANJAIN, TEHSIL\n BALICHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PANJAIN SARAJ-2.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 51\n\n\n 333. MANINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI BUDHA RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KHALECH, POST OFFICE CHACHI, TEHSIL\n BALI CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PANJAIN SARAJ-2.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 334. RAJNI DEVI WIFE OF SHRI KALJANG GAICHU, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JANGI, TEHSIL\n MOORANG, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JANGI.\n\n 335. SAVITA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI VIRENDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KILBA, TEHSIL SANGLA,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KILBA.\n\n 336. CHANDER KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI DEV CHAND,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RARANG,\n TEHSIL MOORANG, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTHI.\n\n 337. NISHA KUMARI WIFE OF SUBHASH CHANDER, RESIDENT\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHITKUL, TEHSIL\n SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KALPA.\n\n\n\n\n 338. MANJOTSNA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RAMJI LAL, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KAMRU, TEHSIL SANGLA,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAKCHHAM.\n\n 339. SUDESH KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI LAXMAN SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BADSERI,\n TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n RAKCHHAM.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 52\n\n\n 340. HITESH SON OF HIRA LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE KAHAI, TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SAPNI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 341. KRISHAN GAUR SON OF URGEEN CHHERING, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE BATURI, POST OFFICE SAPNI, TEHSIL\n SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAPNI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 342. KIRAN KUMARI DAUGHTER OF HARI SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RUPI, TEHSIL NICHAR,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SAPNI.\n\n 343. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI BACHITER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BANDOHU,\n\n TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT GSSS.\n\n DHALI.\n\n 344. MONIKA DEVI DAUGHTER OF UTTAM CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JHAMOON, TEHSIL\n\n\n JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DAGOH.\n\n\n\n\n 345. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF PRITAM RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MAJHERA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TAMBIR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 346. PREM LATA DAUGHTER OF RIKHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TATEHAL, TEHSIL\n PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAJPUR.\n\n 347. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KEHRA, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 53\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GHAR.\n\n 348. RAJANI THAKUR DAUGHTER OF GOPAL SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 3, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GHOR.\n\n 349. RAJINDER KUMAR SON OF PARTAP CHAND, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE WARD NO.1, PALAMPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL TAMBIR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 350. NEERAJ SON OF RAJINDER KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BADA BHAWARNA, TEHSIL\n PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BODA.\n\n 351. ANITA RAJ DAUGHTER OF YASHPAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GARH, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DHALRI.\n\n 352. NEELAM WIFE OF OM PARKASH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE RANH, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n DHALTI.\n\n 353. NISHA CHAUHAN WIFE OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SAMBA KONA, TEHSIL\n PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHALTI.\n\n 354. AJIT KUMAR SON OF JAGARNATH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE THURAL, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GHAR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 54\n\n\n 355. BRIJESH PATHANIA SON OF SHRI ARJUN SINGH,\n RESIENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LODORI KHAS,\n TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER CHOWARI.\n\n 356. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF BIHARI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOTLU, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTALU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 357. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF BHAGWAN DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOTALU, TEHSIL\n JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTALU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 358. MONIKA KATOCH DAUGHTER OF KISHORI CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOHAT,\n TEHSILL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOHAT.\n\n 359. RAJANI KUMARI DAUGHTER OF RAM NATH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOTALU, TEHSIL\n JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTALU.\n\n 360. KANWAR RAJESH SON OF RASEEL SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE UPPER LAMBABGAON,\n TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SANGHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 361. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI KARAM CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KATHOLI, TEHSIL\n JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER CHEMISTRY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MALAHARI.\n\n 362. SHIVNANDAN KUMAR SON OF SHIR JOGINDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARIAL,\n TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 55\n\n\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DAROKA BARIAL.\n\n 363. USHA RANI DAUGHTER OF YOG RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KATHOLI, TEHSIL JAWALI,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL NAGROTA SURIAN.\n\n 364. TILAK RAJ SON OF BODHI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE KATORA, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MASROOR.\n\n 365. HARISH KUMAR SON OF BIHARI LAL, RESIENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KATHOLI, TEHSIL JAWALI,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANAI.\n\n 366. SUKHDEV SINGH SON OF PANJAB SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TAKOLI, GIRTHAN, TEHSIL\n FATEHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANAI.\n\n\n\n 367. MANJU RANI DAUGHTER OF SHRI MANGA RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GUBBER, POST OFFICE LAPIANA,\n TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL MANAI.\n\n 368. SHIV KUMAR SON OF PHULA SINGH RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HARIPUR, TEHSIL DEHRA,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHATOLI PHAKORIAN.\n\n 369. JOGINDER KUMAR SON OF HARI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHATOLI PHAKORIAN,\n TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 56\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BHATOLI PHAKORIAN.\n\n 370. MAMTA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF AMRIT SAGAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALANAMBARI, TEHSIL\n NAGROTA BAGWAN VIA CHAUKTHA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n .\n JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL HARCHAKKIAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 371. NARESH KUMAR SON OF KRISHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG CHAUKTH TEHSIL JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER GEOGRAPHY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KUTIARA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 372. NIRMAL SINGH SON OF SHRI CHAIN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GHARJAROT, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GHARJAROT.\n\n 373. MANMOHAN SINGH SON OF PREM LAL, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO. 3, POST OFFICE SHAHPUR, TEHSIL SHAHPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BOH.\n\n 374. POOJA RANI DAUGHTER OF SHRI SUBHASH CHAND,\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 3, POST OFFICE SHAHPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BOH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 375. SUSHEEL GOSWAMI SON OF PREM LAL, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO. 4, POST OFFICE BHANALA, TEHSIL SHAHPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BOH.\n\n 376. RUCHIKA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI BALDEV\n PRAKASH SHARMA PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 57\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GUGLAHRA, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 377. SACHIN SHARMA SON OF PRITAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BOHAN, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL\n\n\n\n\n\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL NAHLIAN.\n\n 378. NEEL KUMAR SON OF SHRI KAHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE GAUOTI KHUNDIAN, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAHLIAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 379. BINDU RANI DAUGHTER OF MANOHAR SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE TIPBAHLA POST OFFICE SURANI, TEHSIL\n KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAHLIAN.\n\n 380. DAVID KANDAL SON OF RAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JAWALAMUKHI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KALIARA.\n\n 381. NAMDEEP KUMAR SON OF CHANDA SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARIKALAN, TEHSIL\n KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n MAHADEV.\n\n\n\n\n\n 382. RAVI KUMAR SON OF SHRI PREM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SUKHAL, POST OFFICE JAWALAMUKHI, TEHSIL\n JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHADEV.\n\n 383. SUMAN BALA DAUGHTER OF JAGDISH RANA RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL KHUNDIAN,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 58\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KHUNDIAN.\n\n 384. ANKITA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF JATINDER PAL\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n BELA TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER BIOLOGY\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BHAROLI KOHALA.\n\n 385. SHEETAL KUMARI DAUGHTER OF BIDHI SINGH\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SANHOON,\n TEHSIL THURAL, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL THILU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 386. ANJU KUMARI DAUGHTER OF NEK CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GHAGHETTA, POST OFFICE SALAN, TEHSIL\n BALOH, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THILU.\n\n 387. KALPANA RANA DAUGHTER OF RASIL SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 388. RAMESH CHAND SON OF SHRI RATTAN CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JUKANDI POST OFFICE PAISA,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PAISA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 389. POOJA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF GOPAL KRISHAN\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAUL, POST OFFICE\n GHALORA, TEHSIL JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PAISA.\n\n 390. KARAM SINGH SON OF SHRI KANSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GAGLU, POST OFFICE BANE-DI-HATTI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 59\n\n\n BAROH, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BALUGLOA.\n\n 391. SUMNA DEVI DAUGHTER OF PARTAP SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n .\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHOG DEHRIAN, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GUMMER.\n\n\n\n\n\n 392. SAMITA DAUGHTER OF BHIM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHOWKI KHALET, TEHSIL\n PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER GEOGRAPHY AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TIARA.\n\n 393. NEELAM KUMARI DAUGHTER OF JARAM SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJGARH, POST OFFICE DEHRA,\n\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HOME SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS) DEHRA.\n\n 394. POONAM WIFE OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE TIUKRI, POST OFFICE DARKATI, TEHSIL\n\n\n JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PALOURA.\n\n\n\n\n 395. RAVINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI SHARAN DASS\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LAGRU,\n TEHSIL KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THILL.\n\n 396. KAMAL KISHOR SON OF AMIN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE THILL, TEHSIL KHUNDIAN,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THILL.\n\n 397. SITA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF JANAK SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BHAROLI, POST OFFICE THILL, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 60\n\n\n KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THILL.\n\n 398. MEENA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI AMIN SINGH,\n RESIENT OF VILLAGE AGHA, POST OFFICE TIHRI,\n\n\n\n\n .\n TEHSIL KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL TIHRI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 399. OM PRAKASH THAKUR SON OF SHRI BASANT RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDPURA, POST OFFICE\n SIKROHA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL SOLDHA, BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 400. JYOTI DEVI DAUGHTER OF INDER SINGH THAKUR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEOLA CHHAMB, POST OFFICE\n\n HARNORA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SOLDHA,\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 401. NEELAM SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI SUKH DEV\n\n\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 122 B, MAIN\n MARKET, BILASPUR, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR,HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL TARWAR, DSITRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n 402. MADAN LAL SON OF SHRI TEK CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HARNORA, TEHSIL SADAR,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HARNORA,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n 403. ANJANA THAKUR DAUGHTER OF NARAYAN DASS,\n RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 142, NEAR MAHAMAYA\n TEMPLE, SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 61\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n HARNORA.\n\n 404. KAMLA DEVI WIFE OF HANS RAJ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n NERAS, POST OFFICE SAMOH, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GEHARWIN, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 405. PANKAJ KUMAR SON OF DEVI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE MOHALLA UPPAR JULAKARI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LUDDU, CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 406. RAJINDER SINGH SON OF RUMEL SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO.5, VILLAGE RAJAIN, TEHSIL BHATTIYAT,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GARNOTA,\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 407. SAPNA GUPTA WIFE OF VANEET K. GUPTA, RESIDENT OF\n MOHALLA AND POST OFFICE HARDASPURA, DISTRICT\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KARIAN, CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 408. SAPNA JASROTIA WIFE OF AJAY SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n MOHALLA SURARA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n KANAN.\n\n 409. MAMTA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF DALIP CHAND RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DHANWARD POST OFFICE SAROL, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI\n AT GMSSS SAHO, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 62\n\n\n 410. SUDESH LATA DAUGHTER OF GHINDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHOWGAN, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GMSSS SAHO,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 411. SUNEETA THAKUR WIFE OF SURINDER THAKUR\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHANED,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ECONOMICS.\n\n\n\n\n\n 412. HARVINDER SINGH SON OF MAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHAKLOO TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) MATHEMATICS AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PUKHRI\n DSITRICT CHAMBA, HP.\n\n 413. SHAKTI PARSAD SON OF JAIRAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAEG\n\n KANDOLA, POST OFFICE DIGHAI, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANJEER.\n\n 414. NANDNI KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI SATISH KUMAR THAKUR,\n\n\n RESIDENT OF BEHI BAG, POST OFFICE KOTI, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL MALAL, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 415. AATAM SINGH SON OF RUMAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO. 6, NP CHOWARI, TEHSIL BHATTIYAT,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PARCHHORE.\n\n 416. KEWAL KUMAR SON OF DHANKI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO. 2, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHOWARI,\n TEHSIL BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 63\n\n\n NEW) HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL RAIPUR.\n\n 417. NARESH KUMAR SON OF PARAS RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GARNOTA, TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KHARGAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 418. DHEERAJ SINGH SON OF VED VYAS RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KATHAWAR, POST OFFICE BAGHAL, TEHSIL\n CHURA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n GEOGRAPHY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL LOHTIKRI.\n\n 419. NEERAJ SINGH SON OF VED VYAS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KATHAWAR, POST OFFICE BAGHAL, TEHSIL\n\n CHURA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n BIOLOGY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LOHTIKRI.\n\n 420. BHEEM RAJ SON OF DIAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n CHEEH, POST OFFICE CHANJU, TEHSIL GHURAH,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) SANSKRIT AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n BAIRAGARH, CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 421. CHAMPA DEVI DAUGHTER OF JAI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DICKRINYUD, POST OFFICE BHANJRARU,\n TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KHUSHNAGRI, CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 422. JEET SINGH SON OF HANSRAJ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n MAJLAN, POST OFFICE BAGDHAR, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE,\n DSITRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GHATASNI,\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 64\n\n\n 423. PANKAJ SHARMA SON OF SHRI JASWANT RAJ SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEVIDEHRA POST OFFICE\n BATHRI, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) PHYSICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BATHRI, CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 424. BIHARI LAL SON OF PREM NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n ULED, POST OFFICE SUNDLI, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) MATHEMATICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SIMNI,\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 425. RIGZIN DOLMA WIFE OF SHRI AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KEYLONG, DISTRICT\n LAHUL AND SPIRI, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) SANSKRIT AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MALANG.\n\n 426. VEENA DEVI WIFE OF ANAIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE MALANG, 6/2 LAHUL & SPITI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MALANG.\n\n\n\n 427. SURINDER SON OF SHRI PREM LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PUKTAL, POST OFFICE GOUNTHLA, DISTRICT\n LAHUL & SPITI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICSS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GONDULA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 428. SURINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI HIRA LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JAHALMAN, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n LAHUL & SPITI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) POLITICAL\n SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GONDULA.\n\n 429. BIR SINGH SON OF SHIR ANGRUP, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n CHALLING, POST OFFICE CARPAL, DSITRICT LAHUL &\n SPITI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) GEOGRAPHY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHAKALI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 65\n\n\n 430. ANGMO DEVI WIFE OF BIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n CHALLING, POST OFFICE CARPAL, DSITRICT LAHUL &\n SPITI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TINGRET.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 431. SURJEET KUMAR SON OF SHRI AMAR NATH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE BADHANI, TEHSIL BHORANJ, DISTRICT\n HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BAHANWAIN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 432. DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI DURGA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHAMBOH, TEHSIL BHORANJ, DISTRICT\n HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS LECTURER ECONOMICS, AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL JANDRU.\n\n 433. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI BIRBAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHAMBOH, TEHSIL\n\n BHORANJ, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ,\n CHAMBOH.\n\n 434. KAMAL DEV SON OF SHRI DHARAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n VILLAGE BHAGATU, POST OFFICE MAIR, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS IN GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KAPARA.\n\n\n\n\n 435. KARMI DEVI WIFE OF KARUN RAJ SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BOHNI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TAUNI DEVI.\n\n 436. KIRAN DEVI DAUGHTER OF ASHWANI KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE ANDARA, POST OFFICE BARA, TEHSIL\n NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAJROL.\n\n 437. RASHMI THAKUR DAUGHTER OF RAMESH CHAND,\n RESIDEETN OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BOHNI,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 66\n\n\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BOHNI.\n\n 438. SUKHVINDER SON OF AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BOHNI TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BOHNI.\n\n 439. DALJEET SINGH SON OF SHER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KARSOH, POST OFFICE GAWARDDU, TEHSIL\n TAUNI DEVI, DSITRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAJROL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 440. RACHNA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF MASAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SUJANPUR,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JANDRU.\n\n 441. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF KANSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE ANDRAL, POST OFFICE BHATER, TEHSIL TAUNI\n DEVI, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICEL SCIENCE\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KAKKAR.\n\n 442. DEEPAK LAGWAL SON OF SHER SINGH RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KALOH, POST OFFICE BHATER, TEHSIL TAUNI\n DEVI, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL UTPUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 443. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF NAND LAL, RESIENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE UKHLI, DISTRICT\n HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS LECTURER PHYSICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LOWER HARETA.\n\n 444. SEEMA DEVI WIFE OF AMIT KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE HATALI, POST OFFICE BANGANA, DISTRICT\n UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 67\n\n\n LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LOWER HARETA.\n\n 445. REENA KUMARI DAUGHGTER OF ASHWANI KUMAR\n SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GAHLI\n GALORE, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER BIOLOGY AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOWER\n HARETA.\n\n 446. POOJA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF ASHOK KUMAR,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THAPPEL, POST OFFICE\n PANYALI, GALORE, HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DANDRU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 447. ANITA DEVI SHARMA DAUGHTER OF DIPESH KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THANA BRAHMNA, POST OFFICE\n BALIAH, TEHSIL BADSAR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BIJHARI.\n\n 448. KALPNA DEVI WIFE OF NAVEEN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE HARETA GALORE, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LOWER HARETA.\n\n 449. PUSHPA DEVI DAUGHTER OF JASBIR SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DUGHA, HAMIRPUR,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE, AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SANAHI.\n\n 450. SEEMA BHARDWAJ DAUGHTER OF SURESH KUMAR,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LALEEN, POST OFFICE\n CHANGAR, HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHIRALARI.\n\n 451. REENA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF RAVI KUMAR KAUSHIK,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAI, POST OFFICE BATRAN,\n TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER BIOLOGY,\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KASHMIR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 68\n\n\n 452. DESH RAJ SON OF KARAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE ANSRA, POST OFFICE KITPAL, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BADERAN.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 453. SHRESHTHA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SANJEEV KUMAR,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARGOO POST OFFICE\n BADHERA, TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL SANAHI.\n\n 454. SUNITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF ANIL KUMAR PATIAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHALAI AMBARI, POST OFFICE\n MALAN, KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUTIARA.\n\n 455. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF DEV RAJ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n AND POST OFFICE UKHLI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL TANEHAR.\n\n 456. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI CHAIN SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n OF VILLAGE DHANWANA, POST OFFICE KOT, TEHSIL\n TAUNI DEVI, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n MATAHNI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 457. SARUP CHAND SON OF SHRI PRAKASH CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAMLEHRA, POST OFFICE JOURE\n AMB, TEHSIL BADSAR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY,\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BIAR.\n\n 458. MAHINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI BHAGIRATH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KUTHERA, TEHSIL\n BADSAR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KULHERA,\n HAMIRPUR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 69\n\n\n 459. NARESH KUMAR SON OF GIAN SINGH, RESIDENTOF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BIJHARI, TEHSIL BADSAR,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHANGOHTA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 460. KIRAN CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF SADHA RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BIJHARI TEHSIL BADSAR,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHANGOHTA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 461. NEELAM DEVI DAUGHTER OF AJAY RANA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PALKWAH, TEHSIL HAROLI,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PALKWAH.\n\n 462. NISHA RANI DAUGHTER OF RAMESH LAKHA, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GOHLANI NANGAL\n\n ROPAR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BADSALI.\n\n 463. AVINDANA KUMARI DAUGHTER RAJESH KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILAGE BHAROLIAN KALA, POST OFFICE\n BEHDALA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SANOLI.\n\n 464. VIVEK SHEEL SON OF RAMESHWAR DASS, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HATLI, TEHSIL BANGANA,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PIPLOO.\n\n\n\n\n\n 465. VIKESH KUMAR SON OF GIAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHUNDHLA, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PIPLOO.\n\n 466. ANITA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF OM PARKASH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE REWAR, POST OFFICE HATLI, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 70\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PIPLU.\n\n 467. RITA DAUGHTER OF RUKAM DIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n JHAGROT, POST OFFICE GHALOON, TEHSIL BANGANA,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PIPLOO.\n\n 468. BABITA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF RAMESHWAR DASS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MAIRI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n AMB, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL POLIAN PROHTAN.\n\n 469. KANCHNA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SANJIV KAUSHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LALHRI,\n TEHSIL HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER H AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NANGAL KHURD.\n\n 470. ANJU BALA DAUGHTER CHANDER BHUSHAN, RESIDENT\n\n OF VILLAG CHANDPUR, POST OFFICE LALHARI, TEHSIL\n HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NANGAL\n\n\n KHURD.\n\n 471. SADHNA RANI DAUGHTER OF SHIV KUAMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE LALHARI TEHSIL HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA,\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL LALHARI.\n\n 472. SUNITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF JARNAIL SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BATHU, TEHSIL HAROLI,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATHU.\n\n 473. MANJU VASUDEVA DAUGHTER OF BHARAT BHUSHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AJOULI,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATHU.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 71\n\n\n 474. KEWAL SINGH SON OF SHRI DIAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KALOL BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n AJOULI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 475. SUMEKSHA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF RAJESH MOUDGIL,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TAKKA,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SALOH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 476. KAMLESH KUMARI DAUGHTER OF PAWAN KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOWER\n ARNIALA, UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ISPUR.\n\n 477. KANTA DEVI DAUGHTER OF VISHAV KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NANGAL SLANGRI, UNA,\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n DHAMANDRI.\n\n 478. SONIA JOSHI DAUGHTER OF LEKH RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DULEHAR, TEHSI HAROLI,\n\n\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GONDPUR.\n\n\n\n\n 479. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAGAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LALHARI, TEHSIL HAROLI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATHRI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 480. ARUN KUMAR SON OF JAGIRI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LALHARI, TEHSIL HAROLI,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DULEHAR.\n\n 481. KAMAL SINGH SON OF SHRI DAVINDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DULEHAR,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 72\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER PHYSICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DULEHAR.\n\n 482. BALJEET SINGH SON OF SHRI MOHINDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHADSALI,\n TEHSIL HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GSSS. BHADSALI.\n\n 483. MAMTA DEVI DAUGHTER OF JAGDISH RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BADHERA, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT UNA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BHADSALI.\n\n 484. SARAVJEET SINGH SON OF GURCHAIN SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHADSALI, TEHSIL\n HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER BIOLOGY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n PANJAWAR.\n\n 485. SURINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE ISPUR, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY IN GOVERNMENT\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ISPUR.\n\n 486. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI BALDEV SINGH,\n RESIDENTOF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AMBOTA,\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL GHANARI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AMBOTA.\n\n 487. POOJA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF RATTAN CHAND\n\n\n\n\n\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n PRITHIPUR, TEHSI AMB, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PRITHIPUR.\n\n 488. POONAM KUMARI DAUGHTER OF AMAR CHAND SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DAULATPUR,\n TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 73\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GONDPUR.\n\n 489. RANJU RAM SON OF SHRI VISHWA MITTR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOHARA, TEHSIL AMB,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LOHARA.\n\n 490. RAJEEV KUMAR SON OF PRITAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TALMEHRA, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORYA AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AMBEHRA.\n\n 491. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAGAT RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AMBEHRA, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AMBEHRA.\n\n 492. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF KALI DASS, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MANSOOH, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AMBEHRA.\n\n\n\n 493. SATISH KUMAR SON OF PRAKASH CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TALMEHRA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL AMBEHRA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 494. SUBHASH CHAND SON OF SITA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NAHRIDEVISINGH, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AMBEHRA.\n\n 495. SWARNA DEVI DAUGHTER OF BHAGAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE ATYA, POST OFFICE AMBEHRA, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER SANSKRIT AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AMBEHRA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 74\n\n\n 496. ASHA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF ANIL KUMAR SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF H. NO. 88, BASANT BIHAR, JALGRAON,\n UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANDOGA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 497. SUNIL BALA DAUGHTER OF RAMANDEEP SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANDOGA,\n UPPER UNA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANDOGA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 498. BABITA RANI DAUGHTER OF RAJ KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANDOGA TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANDOGA.\n\n 499. MONIKA THAKUR DAUGHTER OF SHRI MOHINDER SINGH\n THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n\n DAULATPUR CHOWK, TEHSIL GHANARI, DISTRICT UNA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n BIOLOGY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL AMBOTA.\n\n 500. MANJU SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI RAM KRISHAN\n\n\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n AMBOTA, TEHSIL GHANARI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n AMBOTA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 501. SANGEETA RANI DAUGHTER OF SANGRAM PAL SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MAWA\n SINDHIAN, TEHSIL GHANARI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL CHALET.\n\n 502. NARDEV SINGH SON OF SHRI GURPAL SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AMB, TEHSIL AMB,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AMB.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 75\n\n\n 503. SATISH KUMARI DAUGHTER OF RAJEEV SINGH RANA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AMB, TEHSIL\n AMB, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AMB.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 504. ANIL KUMAR SON OF AJIT SINGH, RESIDENTOF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n ADHRIN, POST OFFICE KASWAR, TEHSIL BADSAR,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOHARA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 505. HEMANT MOHAN SON OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHALWARI, TEHSIL AMB,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER CHEMISTRY AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOHARA.\n\n 506. RAM CHAND SON OF BRAHM DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOHARA, TEHSIL AMB,\n\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER SANSKRIT, AT GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOHARA.\n\n 507. JASWANT SINGH SON OF MEGH SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GHANGRET, TEHSIL AMB,\n\n\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n CHINTPURNI.\n\n\n\n\n 508. ROZI BALA DAUGHTER OF TARSEM SINGH RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SASAN, POST OFFICE CHARATGARH, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SASAN.\n\n 509. PAWAN DEV SON OF JAGAT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE TANOH, TEHSIL BANGANA, DISTRICT\n UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER HISTORY AT GSSS, ARLOO.\n\n 510. KANTA DEVI DAUGHTER OF RAKESH KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE HERU, POST OFFICE LATHIANI, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 76\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HATLI.\n\n 511. KANCHAN GAUTAM DAUGHTER OF SUBHASH CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HATLI, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HATLI.\n\n 512. ANJANA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF ASHAN PURAN,\n RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 5, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n NANDPUR, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL CHOKIMANIAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 513. SANDEEP CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI SITA RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KUFAR, POST OFFICE TIKARI, TEHSI\n NERWA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER CHEMISTRY AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NERWA.\n\n 514. YASH PAL SON OF SUKH RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n BATEORI SATHWAL, POST OFFICE KEDI, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER GEOGRAPHY AT\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NERWA.\n\n 515. PARMANAND SON OF TIKKI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n BASWA, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NERWA, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KULHAR.\n\n 516. SAROJ KUMARI DAUGHTER OF PREM LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KOTLA, POST OFFICE BRAHAM PUKHAR,\n TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KOTHIPURA.\n\n 517. SAPNA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI SUBHASH CHAND\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF 78A/5 HARIPUR COLONY, NEAR\n NANILA COLLEGE, SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 77\n\n\n 518. HIMESH VERMA SON OF BRIJ LAL VERMA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHHEKON, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHIKROHA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 519. RAMJEET SON OF PREM LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n JALWAS, POST OFFICE KARYAR, TEHSIL PANGI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SACH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 520. RITA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI AMAR CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAROL (TAI) POST OFFICE\n SAROL, TEHSIL PANGI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n NEW) HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DHARWAS.\n\n 521. SHAMSHER SINGH JASWAL SON OF SHRI RASILA RAM,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BATHRA,\n TEHSIL DADA-SIBA, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BATHU-TIPPRI.\n\n\n 522. MAMTA THAKUR DAUGHTER OF DHARAMPAL, RESIDENT\n OF HOUSE NO. 201, DIARA SECTOR WARD NO. 10,\n TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL RAIT.\n\n\n\n\n\n 523. SIHRI DEVI DAUGHTER OF BAKSH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DEHRA, TEHSIL DEHRA,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SUNEHAT.\n\n 524. MANJU KUMARI DAUGHTER OF PRITHI CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RAIT, TEHSIL\n SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAIT.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 78\n\n\n 525. DEEPTI SOOD DAUGHTER OF VINOD KUMAR SOOD,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PRAGPUR,\n TEHSIL PRAGPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PRAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 526. SHWETA DAUGHTER OF KRISHAN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NERTI, TEHSIL SHAHPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DARINI.\n\n 527. KULVINDER SINGH SON OF UDHAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SIHOLPURI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DARINI.\n\n 528. PRIYANKA SOOD DAUGHTER OF AJIT LAL SOOD,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PRAGPUR,\n TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n SOCIOLOGY, AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GHALLOUR.\n\n\n 529. GULSHAN KATOCH DAUGHTER OF KEHAR SINGH\n KATOCH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHILRU, POST OFFICE\n BINDRABAN, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KOTI, SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 530. SANTOSH KUMAR SON OF DAYA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BALOG, TEHSIL NIHRI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BALOG.\n\n 531. OM PRAKASH SON OF SHRI NAND LAL, RESIDENT O\n FVILLAGE DEHRA, POST OFFICE HATWAR, TEHSIL\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOWK.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 79\n\n\n 532. SAROJ BALA WIFE OF SANJAY JHANJI, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL BALDWARA,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOWK.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 533. LALITA KUMARI WIFE OF DINANATH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE TAMRUHAN, POST OFFICE CHOWK, TEHSIL\n BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n CHOWK.\n\n 534. SANTOSH KUMARI WIFE OF KUSHAL CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KANAID, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER SOCIOLOGY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAJWARI.\n\n 535. ARUN KUMAR SON OF SHRI NIKKU RAM, RESIDENTOF\n VILLAGE\n rAND POST OFFICE JAROL, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DEHAR.\n\n 536. RUP SINGH SON OF DEVI DASS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n KHANOKHARI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER SOCIOLOGY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHAH KA\n\n\n\n\n DOHRU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 537. ARPNA KUMARI WIFE OF PARMOD KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAUHAN, POST OFFICE SAJAU-PIPLU, TEHSIL\n DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KUJABALH.\n\n 538. PARMOD KUMAR SON OF LEELADHAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAUHAN, POST OFFICE SAJAU-PIPLU, TEHSIL\n DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KUJABALH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 80\n\n\n 539. BHOOP SINGH SON OF DAULAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANJAIN, TEHSIL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THACHI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 540. HEM SINGH SON OF LABH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n JON, POST OFFICE KURATI, TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DRUBBEL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 541. PUSHPA RANI WIFE OF SHRI BALBIR SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BADA SAMAHAL, POST OFFICE GOHAR,\n TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n CHANDESH.\n\n 542. APARAJITA DAUGHTER OF SOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE ROPARI KALEHARU, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KHUDDI.\n\n\n 543. KAMLESH THAKUR SON OF SHRI ACHHAR SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAINS, POST OFFICE BASONA,\n TEHSIL LAD BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HINDI AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BHAGARPUT MANDI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 544. ANITA BHARDWAJ DAUGHTER OF K.G. BHARDWAJ,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHOLARA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n BASONA, TEHSIL LAD BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BHARARPUT.\n\n 545. HIMANI SHARMA WIFE OF VISHAL SHARMA, RESIDENT\n OF MOHALLA KHARURA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA,HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n LECTURER LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MEHLA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 81\n\n\n 546. EKTA DEVI DAUGHTER OF ASHWANI KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAEG TADOLI, POST OFFICE SAROO, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHAJJIAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 547. SONI DEVI DAUGHTER OF MAAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE BHADOUR, POST OFFICE GEHRA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHAJJIAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 548. SURJEEVAN LAL SON OF SHRI SURAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TANDI, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TANDI.\n\n 549. SEEMA WIFE OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHAR, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL ANNI,\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) CHEMISTRY AT\n\n GMSSS ANNI.\n\n 550. MAHENDER KISHORE SON OF SOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SHUSH TEHSIL ANNI,\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS)\n ANNI.\n\n\n\n\n 551. SAPNA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI HEMANT KUMAR,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NANI, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LUHRI, TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT KULLU,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 552. ANAMIKA VERMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI KISHORI LAL\n VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LORAN, POST OFFICE,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n CHEMISTRY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL JALLUGRAN.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 82\n\n\n 553. VINAY SHARMA SON OF SHRI BHUTESHWAR SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PUID, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n JALLUGRAN.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 554. GEHAR SINGH SON OF DINA CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NAROUL, POST OFFICE GARSA, TEHSIL\n BHUNTAR, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (MATHEMATICS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n JALLUGRAN.\n\n 555. SHEELA DEVI DAUGHTER OF GUPT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SIYAL, TEHSIL MANALI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANALI.\n\n 556. SUDERSHAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI REWAT RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GOJRA,\n\n TEHSIL MANALI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER MATHEMATICS AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HARIPUR.\n\n\n 557. KHEKH RAM SON OF GULAB CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GRAMANG, POST OFFICE BHUTHI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHALLANG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 558. HANS RAJ SON OF BAKSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n JABLAYANA, POST OFFICE NANAVA, TEHSIL\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KUHMANJHWAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 559. ASHA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI JAI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KUH, POST OFFICE MANJHWAR, TEHSIL\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SEPNIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 83\n\n\n KUH-MANJHWAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH\n\n 560. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI TULSI RAM, VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE KUTHERA, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n .\n LECTURER COMMERCE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BARDHIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n 561. SHWETA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI CHAMAN LAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NANAWAN,\n TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GWAL-MUTHANI, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 562. PROMILA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI DINESH KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SALNOO,\n\n TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n\n NEW) HINDI, GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GWAL-MUTHANI, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n 563. MAHANDAR SINGH SON OF SHRI RANJEET SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF PATTA POST OFFICE NASWAL, TEHSIL\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY, GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KAPAHRA, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 564. POONAM MEHTA WIFE OF SHRI NARENDER PAL\n\n\n\n\n\n CHADHA, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NANAWA, TEHSIL\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GWAL-\n MUTHANI, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 565. AMAR SINGH SON OF SHRI DEVI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PARNAL, POST OFFICE NALTI, TEHSIL\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 84\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n ENGLISH AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL HAWAN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 566. AJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI MANSHA RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n .\n OF VILLAGE KASHOL, POST OFFICE MORSINGI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n HIHSTORY AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL HAWAN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH.\n\n 567. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAMANAND, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ECONOMICS AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUH-MANJHWAR,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 568. HARI RAM SON OF SHRI TULSI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHARERA, POST OFFICE BARDHIN TEHSIL\n\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BARDHIN,\n TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n 569. KAMLESH KUMARI W/O SH. RAMESH KUMAR,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BADHU\n DADHOG, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 570. RAJ PAL S/O SH. HARI RAM, PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n LECTURER HINDI, GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BADDU DADHOG, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 571. TIRLOK SINGH SON OF SHRI AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SANDHIYAR, POST OFFICE CHHAT, TEHSIL\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n NAKHLEHRA.\n\n 572. SATISH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SURENDER KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROPA, POST OFFICE BHAGER,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 85\n\n\n TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TALAI.\n\n 573. MUDIT JASROTIA SON OF SHRI JIWAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE LOWER DANOH, POST OFFICE AND\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANDLA.\n\n 574. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI ROOP LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE DIBLA, POST OFFICE TAROUN, TEHSIL\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NANSE\n THATHAR.\n\n\n BEHNA-BRAHMNA,\n\n PRESENTLY\n GOVERNMENT\n\n 575. SONI DEVI WIFE SURAJ KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n POSTED\n POST\n\n\n SENIOR\n AS\n OFFICE\n\n LECTURER\n SECONDARY\n AND TEHSIL\n JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n r HINDI AT\n SCHOOL\n\n NAKHLEHRA.\n\n 576. SURAM SINGH SON OF SHRI JAVANT SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DASERAN, POST OFFICE BHARARIGHAT,\n\n\n TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER COMMERCE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANGAL.\n\n\n\n\n 577. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI CHANDER HANS, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PURBANS, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KALPA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER HISTORY AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KALPA.\n\n\n\n\n\n ......PETITIONERS\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL\n SECRETARY (EDUCATION), TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.\n SHIMLA-2.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 86\n\n\n 2. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n SHIMLA-1.\n ...RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL).\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 2. CWP NO. 5548 OF 2020\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. KAPIL SHARMA S/O SH. UMA DUTT SHARMA, AGE 38\n YEARS, R/O OM BHAWAN BELOW SHARDA BUILDING\n VILLAGE (TOTU) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECT(NEW) IN\n COMMERCE AT GSSS KAINA, DISTT. SHIMLA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2 NARENDER KUMAR S/O SH. NAND LAL SHARMA, AGE 45\n YEARS, R/O VILL. KUTLU, P.O. JHANDUTA, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR. H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECT(NEW) IN\n COMMERCE AT GSSS JHANDUTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR.\n H.P.\n\n\n 3. DINESH KUMAR S/O LATE SH. JAGDEEP SINGH ADDRESS\n VPO NAIN TEHSIL BARSAR, DISTT. HAMIRPUR(HP)\n WORKING AS LECT(NEW) IN CHEMISTRY AT GSSS RAILI-\n JAJRI, TEHSIL BARSAR, DISTT. HAMIRPUR(HP).\n\n\n\n 4. OM PRAKASH S/O SH RATI RAM R/O VILLAGE AND P.O\n THACHI, VIA- DHAMI, DISTT SHIMLA (H.P). PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS LECT(NEW) IN HINDI AT GSSS MAROTHI, TEH\n\n\n\n\n KARSOG, DISTT. MANDI (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n\n 5. HEMRAJ, S/O SH. RATTI RAM SHARMA, YEARS, R/O\n VILLAGE 26 NOV 202 AND P.O THACHI VIA DHAMI, DISTT\n SHIMLA, H.P PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECT(NEW) IN\n HINDI AT GSSS CHALAL THACHI READER TO REGISTRER\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTT SHIMLA, H.P.\n\n 6. CHHAVI SOOD, W/O MANJAL THAKUR, YEARS, R/O VILL\n TAL KEHAR, P.O. AHJU TEH. JOGINDER NAGAR DISTT.\n MANDI H.P, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECT(NEW) BIOLOGY\n DEOL AT GSSS DEOL BAIJNATH, DISTT KANGRA H.P.\n\n 7. PRITIBHA SHARMA W/O MR. SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA R/O\n VILLAGE JAMLI, P.O. THURA, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 87\n\n\n DISTT.BILASPUR. H.P, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECT\n (NEW) IN HINDI AT GSSS KALLAR, BILASPUR, H.P.\n .. PETITIONERS\n\n (BY SH. PAWAN K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\n .\n AND\n\n\n\n\n\n 1 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL\n SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.\n\n 2 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n SHIMLA-171101.\n .........RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVDOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 3. CWP NO. 5692 OF 2020\n\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n 1. RAMESH CHAND S/O SHRI RANJEET SINGH AGE 42\n VILLAGE GALLION P.O SER TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTT.\n\n\n BILASPUR (H.P) 174031 PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT\n GSSS JHANDUTTA, TEH JHANDUTTA, DISTT. BILASPUR (HP).\n\n 2. AVINASH SHARMA S/O SHRI KANSHI RAM, VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n BHARARI, P.O KALOL, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTT. BILASPUR\n (H.P) 174035 PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT GSSS\n\n\n\n\n\n BHAROLI, KALAN TEH JHANDUTTA, DISTT. BILASPUR(HP)\n ....PETITIONERS\n (BY SH. PAWAN K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\n\n AND\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL\n SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n SHIMLA-171101.\n .........RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 88\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 4. CWP NO. 5804 OF 2020\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 1. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SHRI TARBEEJ SINGH, AGE 39 R/O\n VILLAGE DRAMMALA, P.O. DHULARA, TEHSIL SIHUNTA,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS P.E.T AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL KAKROTI GHATTA UNDER COMPLEX\n GSSS THULEL, EDUCATION BLOCK SIHUNTA, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA H.P.\n\n 2. RAVI KANT S/O SHRI PREM LAL R/O VILLAGE SUNAN, POST\n OFFICE ZAKAT KHANA, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n BILASPUR, H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRAWING MASTER\n AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL TIKKAR, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n 3. DHARAM PAL S/O PARMA NAND R/O VILLAGE DAGRAHAN,\n\n P.O. ZAKAT KHANA, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRAWING MASTER\n AT GSSS ZAKATHANA, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n\n 4. SUNEEL KUMAR S/O SHRI RISHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n BADGAON, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS P.E.T AT GSSS BERTHIN TEHSIL\n JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT WWW.BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n 5. RAMESH SHARMA S/O BHAGAT RAM R/O VILLAGE SUMMI,\n\n\n\n\n\n PO MANDHORGHAT TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASTRI AT GOVT. MIDDLE\n SCHOOL SHAROG U/C GSSS CHALAL (THACHI) TEHSIL SUNNI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.\n\n 6. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O RAM SAWROOP R/O VILLAGE\n MANDAP, P.O JOL SAPPUR, TEH NADAUN, DISTT. HAMIRPUR,\n 177048 (OT C & V) GHS SARAN THE. NADAUN, DISTT.\n HAMIRPUR, H.P.\n\n 7. KULDEEP CHAUHAN S/O SH. KHEM RAJ SHARMA R/O VPO\n LESWIN GHS LESWIN TEHSIL CHURAH DISTT. CHAMBA,\n 176321 H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 89\n\n\n 8. KAMAL NAIN SINGH S/O MANAHOR SINGH, R/O VILL TISSA,\n TEHSIL CHURAH DISTT. CHAMBA, H.P. (PET C&V).\n\n 9. DEVINDER KUMAR S/O PAWAN KUMAR R/O VILLAGE KIANI\n P.O KIANI. TEH & DISTT. CHAMBA 176310. (OT, C & V)\n SHASTRI GSSS SANDHI, TEH & DISTT. CHAMBA, (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 10. VIKAS SHARMA S/O SURINDER DEV R/O VILLAGE\n CHHABOT P.O AMRIH, TEH & DISTT. HAMIRPUR, 177020, H.P.\n (OT, C & V) GSSS AMRAH TEH & DISTT HAMIRPUR. (H.P)\n\n\n\n\n\n 11. KASAM KHAN S/O SEBAR KHAN, R/O VILLAGE KULUNDA\n P.O GANED TEHSIL CHURAH DISTT. CHAMBA, 176316, H.P.\n (DM C&V) GMS TISSA U/C GMSSS TISSA, TEHSIL CHURAH\n DISTT.CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 12. DHARAM SINGH S/O SH. KARM SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n SAROWA P.O LESWIN, TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTT. CHAMBA\n 176321 (H.P) PRESENT POSTING SHASTRI (OT) GHS LESWIN,\n TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTT. CHAMBA (H.P.)\n r ..........PETITIONERS\n (BY SH. PAWAN K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n 1 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL\n SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.\n\n 2 DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-171101.\n\n\n\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, CHAMBA\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,\n\n\n\n\n\n HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 5.DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 6 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n ..RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 90\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 5. CWPOA NO.4426 OF 2020\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n .\n 1. DINESH KUMAR S/O SHRI JAGDEEP SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n POST OFFICE NAIN, TEHSIL BARSAR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,\n H.P.\n\n 2. HANS RAJ S/O CHHOTA RAM R/O VILLAGE DULANA, P.0.\n\n\n\n\n\n ZAKAT KHANA, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n 3. RAMESH CHAND, S/O SHRI BAKSHI RAM, VILLAGE\n CHEOTA, P.O. TANBOL. TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n BILASPUR, H.P.\n 4. SUMAN LATA W/O SHRI MAHENDER PAL VILLAGE BATER,\n P.O. ZAKAT KHANA, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n 5. ALBEL SINGH S/O SHRI INDER SINGH V.P.O. KAROLOTI,\n\n TEHSIL GUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.\n ...PETITIONERS.\n ( BY SH. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n AND\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL\n SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P.\n\n\n\n\n 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA-1, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION HAMIPUR, H.P.\n ..RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n 6. CWPOA NO. 4430 OF 2020\n\n BETWEEN:\n 1. RAVI KANT S/O SHRI PREM LAL R/O VILLAGE SUNAN, POST\n OFFICE ZAKATKHANA, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 91\n\n\n 2. DHARAM PAL S/O PARMA NAND R/O VILLAGE DAGRAHAN,\n P.0. ZAKAT KHANA, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n 3. KAPIL DEV, S/O SHRI. PRITAM NATH, R/O VILLAGE\n JHAMRARIAN, P.O. DASLEHRA, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. SUNEEL KUMAR S/O SHRI RISHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n BADGAON, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 5. AJAY SHARMA S/O SHRI SHASHI KUMAR R/O VILLAGE\n DOLANGI, P.O. & TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.\n\n 6. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SHRI TARBEEJ SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n DRAMMALA, P.O. DHULARA, TEHSIL SIHUNTA, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n 7. VIKASH SHARMA, S/O SURINDER DEV, R/O VILLAGE\n CHHABOI, P.O. AMROH, TEHSIL & DISTT. HAMIRPUR, H.P.\n\n 8. AMAN KUMAR S/O SHRI SUHRU RAM, VILLAGE KOHLAG,\n\n P.O. PAIRWIN, TEHSIL BARSAR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.\n ..PETITIONERS\n ( BY SH. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n AND\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL\n SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n 2. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE\n\n\n\n\n\n OF EDUCATION, SHIMLA-1, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION\n\n\n\n\n\n BILASPUR, H.P.\n 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION\n HAMIPUR, H.P.\n 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION CHAMBA,\n H.P.\n 6. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KANGRA,\n H. P.\n ....RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 92\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 7. CWPOA NO. 4432 OF 2020\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n PUSHPA KUMARI D/O PAWAN KUMAR (TGT NON MEDICAL)\n GMS NERA, VILLAGE TISSA, P.O TISSA, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n DISTT. CHAMBA. H.P 176316.\n ....PETITIONER\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. PAWAN K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n AND\n\n I STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL\n\n\n\n\n\n SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-HP.\n\n 3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, CHAMBA,\n H.P.\n ..RESPONDENTS\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n\n\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n 8. CWP NO. 272 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAJENDER SINGH, AGED\n 39 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANROTI, POST\n OFFICE RATNARI, TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RATNARI.\n\n 2. DURGA PRASAD SON OF SHRI RATTAN DASS, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DHEU, POST OFFICE SHAHADAR, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KINNU.\n\n 3. KAMRAJ SON OF SHRI BHAG RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MASHNU, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 93\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DANSA.\n\n 4. SATISH KUMAR SON OF SHRI UDHAM SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE PATIANA, POST OFFICE KUHAL, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n .\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL JEORI.\n\n 5. PRAMOD KUMAR CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI KESHAV RAM,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHUNJA, POST OFFICE DELATH,\n TEHSIL NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHAKRI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 6. JITESHWAR DUTTA SON OF SHRI RAJESHWAR DUTTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANCHHUNA, POST OFFICE\n KARASSA, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TOTU.\n\n 7. MOHINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI RAM SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DOCHI, POST OFFICE GHOOND, TEHSIL\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GHOOND.\n\n 8. ROHIT BHANDARI SON OF SHRI GOPAL SINGH\n BHANDARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHOG, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n DEHA, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DEHA.\n\n 9. SURESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI DEVI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAYARAL, POST OFFICE DHARAMPUR\n\n\n\n\n\n (MADHAN), TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GADAKUFRI.\n\n 10. JAGAT SINGH SON OF SHRI FANDYA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MANJHOLI, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 94\n\n\n DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GAUNTH.\n\n 11. BHUPAL SINGH SON OF LATE BHARAT SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KARAWATI, POST OFFICE PHARAL, TEHSIL\n KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MALANDI.\n\n 12. SANDEEP SIRKECK SON OF SHRI JOGENDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DALAN, POST OFFICE VIRGARH,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL VIRGARH.\n\n 13. RAJNESH JUSTA SON OF SHRI DHARAM PAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE CHOGAN, POST OFFICE GHALEHA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL RAWLA KIAR.\n\n 14. ARVINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI DAULAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KUINAL, TEHSIL\n\n KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL RAMNAGAR.\n\n\n 15. KULDEEP THAKUR SON OF SHRI SURAT SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAKAN, POST OFFICE TURAN,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHAGTAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 16. BALKRISHAN SON OF SHRI DULA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAROT, POST OFFICE TURAN, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DHADI RAWAT.\n\n 17. SUSHIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI GOVERDHAN SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHOLAR,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RATHAL.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 95\n\n\n 18. AJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI BISHER CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE THANA, POST OFFICE TIKKAR, TEHSIL\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL THAILA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 19. HIMANSHU SON OF SHRI KAMAL RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LANA CHETA, TEHSIL\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BOGDHAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 20. SANT RAM SON OF SHRI JEET SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JARVA JUNELI, TEHSIL\n SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BANETHI.\n\n 21. JAGDISH KUMAR SON OF SHRI HIRA LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DIDHOG, POST OFFICE PRATHA, TEHSIL AND\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL KALOH.\n\n 22. ANUJ KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SHRI BABU RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAREHAN, POST OFFICE DINGER\n\n\n KINNER, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n GAGAL SHIKORE.\n\n\n\n\n 23. VIJAY SHARMA SON OF SHRI VIDYA DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AJGA, POST OFFICE NARAG, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GMSSS NARAG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 24. MANOHAR LAL SON OF ACHHAR DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AJGA, POST OFFICE NARAG, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL.\n\n 25. KAMLESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI MAST RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DEOTHI MAJHGAON,\n TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 96\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHARGAON.\n\n 26. HARINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI BALDEV SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MARYOG, POST OFFICE GAURA,\n TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAMORA.\n\n 27. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHIMA NAND SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHIAMA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n DOMEHAR BANI, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n CHHOUSSA, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n 28.\n\n\n GURMEET SINGH SON OF SHRI PYARE LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SERI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NALAGARH,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MITTIAN.\n\n 29. AMIT KUMAR SON OF SHRI BASU DEV, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DASERAN, POST OFFICE BHARARIGHAT,\n TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SURAJPUR, SOLAN.\n\n 30. HITENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI DHARAM DASS,\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOMEHAL, POST OFFICE CHAURI\n DHAR, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAINJ BAGRA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 31. HITENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI BELI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PRESSU, SUB TEHSIL\n PANGNA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MAINDHI.\n\n 32. LAL CHAND SON OF SHRI DARSHAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE JACHH, POST OFFICE JHUNGI, TEHSIL\n NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 97\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL JHUNGI.\n\n 33. KAMALJEET SON OF SHRI NOKH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LAHRU, POST OFFICE SHARHAN, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SHORSHAN.\n\n 34. MAN SINGH SON OF SHRI SANT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE RADHAN POST OFFICE GHURLA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL THALTUKOD.\n\n 35. KAMLESH KUMAR SON OF MOOL RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE BHATOG, POST OFFICE DRANG, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL TANDOO, MANDI.\n\n 36. KISHORE KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE SILAG, POST OFFICE PALI, TEHSIL PADHAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KHANI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 37. SANJIV KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHAGWAN DASS, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SIMMAS, TEHSIL LAD\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJALAG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 38. BALDEV SINGH SON OF SHRI PRAKASH CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE OOTPUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL LAD BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANDOL.\n\n 39. LALIT KUMAR SON OF SHRI BUDHI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MAKRERI, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAKRERI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 98\n\n\n 40. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI MAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BADOO, POST OFFICE KURATI, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DRUBBAL.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 41. RAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI PREM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE DOLBAHAL, POST OFFICE LANGNA, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LANGNA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 42. MOHAN SINGH SON OF SHRI HARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BADGARA BUHALA, POST OFFICE KUTHERA,\n TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BIHUN.\n\n 43. PRAVEEN KUMAR SON OF SHRI. BUDHI SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MANAI,\n\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MANAI.\n\n 44. VIVEK CHANKUM SON OF SHRI VIRENDER NEGI,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SANGLA,\n\n\n TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BADSERI.\n\n\n\n\n 45. KAILASH CHAND SON OF SHRI KRISHAN LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KILBA, TEHSIL SANGLA,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KILBA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 46. SHANTA KUMARI WIFE OF LAXMI CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SPILLOW, TEHSIL POOH,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LIPPA.\n\n 47. SHYAMESHWARI WIFE OF SHRI MOHINDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MEERU\n CHOLING, TEHSIL NICHAR, DISTRICT KINNAUR,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 99\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TANGLING.\n\n 48. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SATYA DEVI, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KALPA, TEHSIL KALPA,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL JANGI.\n\n 49. JAGMOHAN SON OF SHRI DARSHAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL KALPA,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL URNI.\n\n 50. INDER SINGH VERMA SON OF SHRI BASANT SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAGOUT, POST OFFICE\n MANJHWAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUH-\n\n MAJHWAR, BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 51. NARENDER PAL SINGH SON OF SHRI SHEETAL SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KULARI, POST OFFICE KALIBARI,\n TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAJHARI, BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 52. KRANTI MOHAN SON OF SHRI NAND LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE PUNAHAN, POST OFFICE BERI RAZADIAN,\n TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HARNORA, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 53. RAJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI DHANI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LADRA, POST OFFICE BARU DADHOG, TEHSIL\n SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BADU DADHOG, BILASPUR.\n\n 54. GOPAL CHAND SON OF DEVI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KIARI, POST OFFICE SARAIN, TEHSIL CHOPAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 100\n\n\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL IRRA.\n\n 55. HITENDER SON OF SHRI SAHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GHANARI, POST OFFICE MATAL, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MATAL.\n\n 56. JITENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI DAULAT RAM, VILLAGE\n THIARA, POST OFFICE PORAN, TEHSIL CHOPAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SHILLA.\n\n 57. KEWAL RAM SON OF SHRI HARI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SERTI, POST OFFICE DEIYA, TEHSIL CHOPAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MALAT.\n\n 58. UMESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI CHANDER MANI, RESIDENT\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHARWAS, TEHSIL\n PANGI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DHARWAS.\n\n\n\n 59. ASHOKA SON OF SHRI MOTI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GANGATH, TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SUKHAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 60. ATUL SHARMA SON OF SHRI SHYAM PRASAD, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARSONA, TEHSIL LAD\n\n\n\n\n\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT BHARARPATT.\n\n 61. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI GORAKH RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE JHARG, POST OFFICE DHAR TATOH, TEHSIL\n SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SIKROHA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 101\n\n\n 62. RAVINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI SHER SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DHARA, POST OFFICE SWAHAN, TEHSIL SRI\n NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT BIALSPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SWAHAN.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 63. JATINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI PARMA NAND SHARMA,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF PURANA BAZAAR POSH, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BANTHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 64. HITESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SOM KRISHAN, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BARAL, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL KAO.\n\n 65. VED PARKASH SON OF SHRI GUJJAR MAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LAHAT, TEHSIL\n\n JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LAHAT.\n\n 66. KULYASH RAI SON OF SHRI VIKRAM CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KANGAR HAROLI, TEHSIL\n\n\n HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SALOH.\n\n\n\n\n 67. RAJIV JASWAL SON OF SHRI PYAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SAROH, POST OFFICE CHAMYARI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SAROH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 68. SUKHVINDER KAUR DAUGHTER OF VIRENDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HALARAN, POST OFFICE\n HEERAN, TEHSIL HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SANOLI.\n\n 69. AJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI SURENDER KUMAR, VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE AMBOTA, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT\n UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 102\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n AMBOTA.\n\n 70. VINOD KUMAR SON OF BIDHI CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHANJAL, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL BHANJAL.\n\n 71. GURMUKH SINGH KANG SON OF SHRI HUSAN SINGH\n KANG, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n ISHPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BADSALI.\n\n 72. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF DUNI CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AMBEHRA, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL AMBEHRA.\n\n 73. HARISH KALIA SON OF SHRI SHIV KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHINTPURNI, DISTRICT UNA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n CHINTPURNI.\n\n\n\n 74. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF RANBIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BATARLI, TEHSIL BADSAR,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL JORE-AMB.\n\n\n\n\n\n 75. SATPAL SINGH SON OF SHRI RATTAN CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF KULHERA, TEHSIL BADSAR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KULHERA.\n .. PETITIONERS\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE\n GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 103\n\n\n 2. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n SHIMLA-1.\n .. RESPONDENTS\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL).\n\n\n\n\n .\n 9. CWP NO. 291 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN:\n 1. RAMAN SHARMA SON OF SHRI VIDHAN CHAND,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 2, VILLAGE LOHALI, POST OFFICE\n AND TEHSIL DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n SAKRERA UNDER COMPLEX GMSSS DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 2. PURSHOTAM SINGH MEHRA SON OF SHRI PURAN CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF WARD NO.5, VILLAGE BHATOLI, POST OFFICE\n KAKIRA, TEHSIL BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n\n TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n SMATTAR, U/C GSSS KAKIRA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 3. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SHRI ANGAD RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n VILLAEG PHAGOT, POST OFFICE RAIPUR, TEHSIL BHATTIYAT,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PHAGOT, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAIPUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. KAMAL KUMAR SON OF SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DHROG, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TGTNM. AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GAILLA, U/C GSSS\n SIRKUND, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 5. ESHA SINGH THAPA WIFE OF VIVEK SINGH THAPA,\n RESIDENT OF WARD NO.5, VILLAGE KALUGANJ POST OFFICE\n KAKIRA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GHATASNI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 104\n\n\n 6. TRILOK NATH SON OF SHRI MUNSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO. 4, VILLAGE CHALEAR, POST OFFICE BHARARI,\n TEHSIL BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KUDDI, U/C\n GSSS HOBAR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 7. ARUN MEHRA SON OF PURAN CHAND RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO. 5, VILLAEG BHATOLI, POST OFFICE KAKIRA,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BAIRAN, U/C GSSS. KAKIRA,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 8. ASHISH KUMAR SON OF ANIRUDH PRASAD, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KHAJJIAR, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GSSS\n KHAJJIAR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 9. SURESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SATYA PRASAD,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATALI, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n\n KHAJJIAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (ARTS) AT GSSS KHAJJIAR, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 10. VIKAS SHARMA SON OF ANAND SHARMA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG BAGORI, POST OFFICE KIANI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GSSS KIANI\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 11. KULDEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI MOHAN LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE MATIYARA, POST OFFICE MASROOND, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GMS\n MAUWA, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KIANI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 12. VIJAY SINGH SON OF CHUHRU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SATVANI, POST OFFICE SANDHI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GSSS SANDHI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA,HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 105\n\n\n 13. GAURAV VAID SON OF JAI KUMAR VAID, RESIDENT OF\n CHHATERBHUJ NIWAS, MOHALLA CHARPAT, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JANJLA, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KARIAN, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 14. HITESH KUMAR SON OF OM PARKASH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHARNAT, POST OFFICE JHULARA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SINGI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 15. JITENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI SUKH DEV RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n SULTANPUR, POST OFFICE SULTANPUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GMS. BARI, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANGLA,\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 16. PAVINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI KRISHAN CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAMERA, POST OFFICE JANGHI\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL TRALLA, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 17. MOHAMMAD ALI SON OF SUMSDEEN, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MANJEER, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANJEER,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 18. ANJANA DEVI WIFE OF DHARMENDER SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF MOHALLA DROBHI POST OFFICE CHAMBA, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KAKIAN, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMHARKA, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 106\n\n\n 19. SONIA THAKUR DAUGHTER OF DAULAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHARIAN KOTHI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHOORI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 20. BABLI DEVI DAUGHTER OF JARAM SINGH THAKUR,\n RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MUGLA, POST OFFICE HARDASPURA,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BELLY, U/C GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL RAJERA.\n\n 21. SAROJINI THAKUR WIFE OF AMIT VAID, RESIDENT OF\n MOHALLA SURARA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GMSSS BHARIAN KOTHI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 22. JYOTI PATHANIA WIFE OF HITENDER SINGH PATHANIA,\n RESIDENT OF SANTI NIWAS, MOHALLA SURARA, POST OFFICE\n\n AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LUDDU,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 23. NEERJA RATHORE WIFE OF SWAROOP RATHORE,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAEG CHANDI, TEHSIL CHAMBA, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANDI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 24. ABHILASHA DAUGHTER OF SOHAN SINGH RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SAROL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAHO, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 25. MANJANA KUMARI WIFE OF BALWAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KUTHAR, POST OFFICE KANDLA, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA,HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 107\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PRAHNAVI, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL , CHANDI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 26. ROHIT KUMAR SON OF GURDEV SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MOHAL, POST OFFICE CHANDI LADOG, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DUGHAR, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PAJJA, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 27. MUKESH CHAND SON OF KAILASH CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BEHI BAGH, POST OFFICE KOTI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KANDLA, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 28. NAVNEET KUMAR SON OF TILAK RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHOWARI, WARD NO. 1, TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GEHRNA,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n 29. DESH RAJ SON OF LAXMAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF WARD\n NO.1, VILLAGE LUHANI, POST OFFICE MALUNDA, TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DHADU, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 30. ONKAR SINGH SON OF SHRI DALIP SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MOTIHAR, POST OFFICE HOBAR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MATHOLU, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 31. SHRUTI SHARMA WIFE OF ANUPAM KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF WARD NO.2 VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHOWARI, TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SOLTA, U/C\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 108\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOWARI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 32. SURINDER SINGH SON OF KHAJJUR SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE GAGHAR, POST OFFICE RAIPUR, TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BIHALI, U/C\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DHADU, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 33. NARINDER SINGH SON OF DUNI CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SANOH, POST OFFICE GUR CHAL TEHSIL NURPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SALOH, U/C GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PARCHOORE, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA.\n\n 34. KAMAL SINGH SON OF PYAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GEHRA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GEHRA, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n 35. MAN SINGH SON OF SHRI HARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHULLA, POST OFFICE GANED, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL ANIYUNDA, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BOUNDERI\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 36. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF CHAIN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE GHEIYA, POST OFFICE BAGHEIGARH, TEHSIL\n CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PRABHA, U/C\n GSSS, BAGHEIGARH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 37. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI CHAMARU RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE NALA POST OFFICE RAJNAGAR, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 109\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PRABHA U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAGHEIGARH, CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 38. VEENA WIFE OF DHARO RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAEG\n\n\n\n\n .\n THALLA, POST OFFICE AURA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL KAHARI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 39. KASTURI LAL SON OF RAFFEL RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG RAKHED, POST OFFICE AWAN, TEHSIL BHATTIYAT,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KAHRI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 40. ANTIMA DAUGHTER OF KRISHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BANIKHET TEHSIL DALHOUSIE,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DEVIDEHRA, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATHRI, TEHSIL\n DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 41. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF KALASO RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SIMNI, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SIMNI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 42. NARINDER KUMAR SON OF GIAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BATHRI, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BHARURI, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATHRI, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 43. VANDNA THAKUR DAUGHTER OF AMRIK SINGH THAKUR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SHERPUR, TEHSIL\n DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 110\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BATHRI, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 44. SURENDER SHARMA SON OF SHRI MAST RAM SHARMA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAMANA, POST OFFICE GHOOND,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SHALOHA, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GHOOND.\n\n\n\n\n\n 45. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI NARAIN SINGH RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KHOLA, POST OFFICE GHOOND, TEHSIL THEOG,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GHOOND.\n\n 46. KESHAV RAM SON OF SHRI LAIQ RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE HALAI, POST OFFICE DEHA, TEHSIL THEOG,\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n HIGH SCHOOL BAGRI.\n\n 47. KULDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI BHAGAT SINGH\n CHAUHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADLAOG, POST OFFICE\n\n\n CHAMBI, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL BADLAOG, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL NANHAR.\n\n\n\n\n 48. ISHWARI DUTT SON OF BIRBAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n THARU, POST OFFICE BALAG, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n HIGH SCHOOL MONDOO, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BALAG.\n\n 49. POONAM DAUGHTER OF LAIQ RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DEOTHI, (BALSON) TEHSIL\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SUMMER HILL,\n SHIMLA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 111\n\n\n 50. SANDEEP RAHUL, SON OF SHRI BANSI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BANEHA, POST OFFICE KUTHAR, TEHSIL THEOG,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DEHA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 51. MAMTA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI GIAN SHARMA, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE TIKARI, POST OFFICE JAIS, TEHSIL THEOG,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 52. KRISHANA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI CHET RAM,\n RESIDENTOF VILLAGE PALI, POST OFFICE DHARECH, TEHSIL\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL , DHARECH.\n 53. PUMAN KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI RAM SARAN, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KATENYA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n SEHMAL, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ,\n\n DHARECH.\n\n 54. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF DURGA SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MADHARI, POST OFFICE SHARI (MATIANA), TEHSIL\n\n\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHORI.\n\n\n\n\n 55. SUNAINA DOGRA DAUGHTER OF SHRI KARAM CHAND\n DOGRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHARMALI, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n KIARA, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL MAHORI.\n\n 56. MANOJ KANWAR SON OF UDHAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE FAGU, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TYALI.\n\n 57. PRATIBHA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI DURGA NAND SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOTVAN, POST OFFICE DHARECH,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 112\n\n\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n TYALI.\n\n 58. SUBHASH CHAND SON OF SHRI DEVI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE TIKARI, POST OFFICE JAIS, TEHSIL THEOG,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAJROLIPUL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 59. RANJNA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DODRA, POST OFFICE DHARAMPUR\n (MADHAN), TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DHARAMPUR (MADHAN).\n\n 60. KANTA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BARARJHAL, POST OFFICE SHILAROO, TEHSIL\n\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GADAKUFRI.\n\n 61. TITU KUMAR SOON OF SHRI GOVERDHAN DASS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RONI, POST OFFICE BHARANA, TEHSIL\n\n\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GADAKUFRI.\n\n\n\n\n 62. KISHORI LAL SON OF SHRI GITA RAM SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHARANA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MAJHRANA, U/C GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GADAKUFRI.\n\n 63. KAMINI KAINTHLA DAUGHTER OF SHRI BABU RAM\n KAUSHAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KONTHROO, POST OFFICE\n NARKANDA, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL NARKANDA, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 113\n\n\n 64. HEMANT KUMAR SON OF SHRI HET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SINWI POST OFFICE KANGAL, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL JANJALI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 65. STAKSHI JISHTU DAUGHTER OF SHRI ASHOK MEHTA,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PHALELI, POST OFFICE THANADHAR,\n TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n BHUTTI.\n\n 66. ASHWANI NIRALA SON OF LATE HIRA LAL NIRALA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAZA, POST OFFICE JAROL, TEHSIL\n KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KHANELI SADHECH.\n\n 67. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI DIWAN CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KADIWAN, TEHSIL ROHROO,\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KADIWAN.\n\n\n 68. OM PRAKASH SON OF SHRI UTTAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TIKARI, POST OFFICE PUJARLI NO.4, TEHSIL\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KOTI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 69. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOTI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE FRUINKOTI POST OFFICE PUJARLI NO.4, TEHSIL\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PUJARLI NO.4.\n\n 70. VINOD SON OF KITAB SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n KOTI, POST OFFICE PUJARLI NO.4, TEHSIL ROHROO,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KOTI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 114\n\n\n 71. RISHAV DEV SON OF BUDIH SINGH, RESIENT OF VILLAGE\n SNEKHAL, POST OFFICE PUJARLI NO.4, TEHSIL ROHROO,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BADSHAL.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 72. SUDHIR KUMAR SON OF SHRI GEETA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE NAKSETLI, POST OFFICE DHARARA, TEHSIL\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n BADSHAL.\n\n 73. KULDEEP KUMAR SON OF SHRI DIWAN CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAZAR, POST OFFICE PUJARLI, NO. 4,\n TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PUJARLI, NO.3.\n\n 74. DIVYA DESHTA DAUGHTER OF MEHAR SINGH DESHTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KASHAINI, POST OFFICE TIKKAR,\n\n TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n TIKKAR.\n\n\n\n 75. SITA GAJHAIL, DAUGHTER OF BILA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DADAHRA, POST OFFICE THAILI CHAKTI, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n THAILI CHAKTI.\n\n 76. VIPIN PRAKASH SON OF SHRI VISHESHER LAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANOLI, POST OFFICE DANSA, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n DANSA.\n\n 77. DES RAJ SON OF SAIN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n SADANA, POST OFFICE LABANA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 115\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KAOBIL.\n\n 78. CHANDER SINGH SON OF KUMAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KANDHAR, POST OFFICE SARPARA, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JULIKOT.\n\n 79. KUSHAL SINGH SON OF VEER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KANDARI, POST OFFICE PHANCHA, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TGNM.. AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GANVI.\n\n 80. SHAIFALI, DAUGHTER OF RAJENDER SUNAIL, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JEORI, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JEORI.\n\n 81. RAMESH CHAND SON OF SHRI GAURI DUTT, RESIDENT\n\n OF VILLAGE KALAS, POST OFFICE THONA, TEHSIL\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n JEORI.\n\n 82. PREM LATA DAUGHTER OF MOHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DANEOTI, POST OFFICE DANAWALI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ,\n JHINJNOO.\n\n\n\n\n\n 83. KAPIL DEV SON OF SHRI MEENA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NAGALNI, POST OFFICE DANAWALI, TEHSIL\n NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KHARAHAN,\n 84. RENU DEVI DAUGHTER OF PURAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KHARAHAN TEHSIL NANKHARI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL KHARAHAN.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 116\n\n\n\n 85. ASHA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI MEHAR SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SARAHAN.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 86. GULBADAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI BHURA RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE SENTHWA, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NITHAR\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SARAHAR\n\n\n\n\n\n 87. DAULAT RAM SON OF SHRI RAM NATH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BARGHURIDHAR, POST OFFICE SARGA, TEHSIL\n NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SARGHA.\n\n 88. DHARAM DASS SON OF SHRI BALAK RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AMTUA, POST OFFICE DEEM TEHSIL NIRMAND,\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL PAKORA.\n\n 89. MEENA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF PRATAP SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NIRATH, TEHSIL\n\n\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KOIL.\n\n\n\n\n 90. RUBINA DAUGHTER OF ISHWAR DASS RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DEHRA, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NITHAR\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DHAMAH, KULLU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 91. MANJU KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI GURDYAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHANERI, POST OFFICE SHINGLA,\n TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL AVERI.\n\n 92. SURJEET SINGH SON OF SHRI DINA LAL, RESIDENT OF\n KANDRERI, POST OFFICE SURAD, TEHSIL NANKHARI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 117\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NOGLI.\n\n 93. KISHORI LAL SON OF SHRI JAWALA DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHAH. POST OFFICE DURAH, TEHSIL NIRMAND,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n .\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SARHAR.\n\n 94. NEETU RAM SON OF SHRI PREM DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHANERI, POST OFFICE SHINGLA, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL SHANERI\n\n 95. UDAY SINGH SON OF SHRI NARAIN DASS, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KOTI, POST OFFICE DHAR-GAURA, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL MAGHARA.\n\n 96. DEEPAK KUMAR SON OF SHRI KALMA NAND, RESIDENT\n\n OF VILLAGE MAJHALI, POST OFFICE DEOTHI, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KUHAL.\n\n\n\n 97. ANURADHA DAUGHTER OF SHRI MANI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO. 5, MAIN BAZAAR, RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n\n\n\n\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS)RAMPUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 98. RAVI KANT SON OF SHRI AKBAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JAGHORI, 15/20, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n JHAKRI.\n\n 99. MEENA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI YOG RAJ,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SHINGLA, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TGA. AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SHINGLA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 118\n\n\n 100. BHAGESHWARI NEGI DAUGHTER OF SHRI SATISH\n KUMAR NEGI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANAI, TEHSIL SANGLA,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JAGUNI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 101. SARITA KUAMRI DAUGHTER OF SHRI NARAYAN DASS,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAR-GAURA, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL KOTI-KAPTI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 102. KUSAM SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI MEGH DUTT\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHEVTA, POST OFFICE\n JABLI, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n\n\n\n\n\n TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GMSSS DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 103. RANDHIR SINGH SON OF SHRI DEVINDER SINGH,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PORSA, POST OFFICE LOWER KOTI,\n TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n LOWER KOTI.\n\n\n 104. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SHYAM LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KARASSA, TEHSIL ROHROO,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KARASSA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 105. KANIKA GUPTA DAUGHTER OF SHRI SUDHAN PAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICER KARASSA, TEHSIL\n ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TGTA. AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BALASA.\n\n 106. SUNIL DUTT SON OF SHRI VIDYA DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JAKHAR, POST OFFICE SAMOLI, TEHSIL ROHROO,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SEEMA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 119\n\n\n 107. SAIN SINGH SON OF SHRI SAARDAR SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KAWALTA, POST OFFICE GILTARI, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MUNRCHOOD.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 108. POOJA THAKUR WIFE JAGDISH SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE ROHAL, POST OFFICE KHADDAR, TEHSIL LAD\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL BHAJYAR, U/C GMSSS HALOG DHAMI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 109. RAJIV RATHORE SON OF SHRI BS RATHORE, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KANUARI, POST OFFICE AND SUB TEHSIL DHAMI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JABRI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n 110. ROOP RAM SON OF SHRI CHET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TIKKER, POST OFFICE SHAKRAH, SUB TEHSIL\n\n DHAMI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESHPRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUFTU,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 111. DEVENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAM PAL SHAIL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KAUNANI\n\n\n\n\n HELOGODHAN, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n\n\n\n\n\n TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NEHRA.\n\n 112. HEM RAJ SON OF SHRI TOTA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KOTISER, POST OFFICE BASANTPUR, TEHSIL SUNNI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DOMEHAR.\n\n 113. KULDEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI KHUB SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE SHETHVI, POST OFFICE BASANTPUR, TEHSIL\n SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BASANTPUR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 120\n\n\n 114. RAKSHA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF RAM KARAN, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE SHILL, POST OFFICE DATUBHAN, TEHSIL SUNNI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NEHRA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 115. BELI RAM SON OF SHRI GOVERDHAN DASS, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE TALAHA, POST OFFICE BARARA, TEHSIL SUNNI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL THARU U/C GSSS OGLI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 116. CHETNA NAND SON OF SHRI BIHARI LALL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KANDA, POST OFFICE GUMMA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT SHIMLA PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL BAIRETY, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GUMMA.\n\n 117. MAHESH SHARMA SON OF SHRI NARESH DUTT SHARMA,\n\n RESIDENT OF MAHESH KUTIR, CEMETERY ROAD, SANJAULI,\n SHIMLA-6 PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n\n TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DATUKHAR.\n\n 118. JYOTI PRAKASH SON OF SHRI KAILASH CHANDER,\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANOUR, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATUKHAR.\n\n\n\n\n 119. RAKESH SON OF BASANT LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAG\n\n\n\n\n\n GRAON, POST OFFICE BARARA, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL PIPLUGHAT, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KARYALI.\n\n 120. DEVENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI MATHA RAM SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BEYON, POST OFFICE DEVGARH,\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n DEVGARH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 121\n\n\n 121. RAM LAL SHARMA SON OF SHRI MANI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KHACHI, POST OFFICE DEVGARH, TEHSIL\n KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KOTHI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 122. PANKAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI GURCHARAN SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE REOGHATI, POST OFFICE DEORI\n KHANETI, TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DEORI-KHANETI.\n\n 123. VIRENDER SHARMA SON OF SHRI RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHALNAIR, POST OFFICE CHALNAIR, TEHSIL\n KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SAINTARI. r\n 124. ASHA DEVI DAUGHTER OF HARI DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PAL, POST OFFICE BAKHOL, TEHSIL KOTKHAI,\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL BAKHOL.\n\n\n 125. SUNIL KUMAR AUSTA SON OF SHRI SURAT RAM AUSTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RATNARI, TEHSIL\n KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n\n\n\n\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SPONIL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 126. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI DHARAM DUTT,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHALI, POST OFFICE GRAOG,\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n JAUNI.\n\n 127. UMESH CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI LAIQ RAM CHAUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHONRI, TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SHAWALA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 122\n\n\n 128. SURESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI LAIQ RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DEEM, TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL RAWLAKIAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 129. ARVIND CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI DR CHAUHAN,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATHROT, POST OFFICE HIMRI,\n TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BHARECH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 130. NEERAJ SHARMA SON OF SHRI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n BHULA, POST OFFICE PANOG, TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MATIANA.\n\n 131. BABITA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MANDAL, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL THANA.\n\n 132. SATISH KUMAR JHAUTA SON OF SHRI LAXMAN DASS\n JHAUTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHAR,\n\n\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,\n DHAR.\n\n\n\n\n 133. SOHAN SINGH CHAMSAN SON OF JEET RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE THAMARA, POST OFFICE THANGAR, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SAINJ.\n\n 134. UMA DEVI WIFE OF SURINDER KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PALKAN, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL ROHROO,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHADI RAWAT.\n\n 135. YASHPAL CHAUHAN SON OF SUNDER CHAUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JHARAG, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 123\n\n\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHARAG\n NAKRARI.\n\n 136. RAVI KUMAR SON OF SHRI PADAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE DHARMANA, POST OFFICE ANTI, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHOL KA JUBBAR (SOLAN)\n\n\n\n\n\n 137. YOGINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI JAI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NEHNAR, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS) JUBBAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 138. KAVITRI TANWAR DAUGHTER OF BHARAT SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SASKIR, POST OFFICE SOLANG,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SASKIR.\n\n 139. PANKAJ KUMAR SON OF KANWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MANDAL, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANDAL.\n\n 140. LAXMI KANT SON OF LATE GOVIND SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE ROHTAN, POST OFFICE MANDAL, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANDAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 141. ANITA DEVI WIFE OF ANIL KUMAR RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE THANA, POST OFFICE MANDAL, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SARI.\n\n 142. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF KESAR SINGH BHAGTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JHAGTAN, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 124\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHAGTAN.\n\n 143. MOHINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI TARA SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JHAGTAN, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n .\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL JHARASHALI.\n\n 144. SUMAN LATA WIFE OF YASHPAL JHAGTA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JHALTA, TEHSIL JUBBAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL DOCHHI.\n\n 145. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI INDER SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE DHANSAR, POST OFFICE JHALTA, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHEBRI.\n\n 146. POONAM RANI WIFE OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANSAR, POST OFFICE JHALTA,\n TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MATASA.\n\n\n\n 147. ANIL SHARMA SON OF SHRI RAMA NAND SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATAR, POST OFFICE DHADI RAWAT\n VIA HATKOTI, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL NADHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n SARI.\n 148. SANGITA CHAUHAN WIFE OF SHRI RANJAN BHANDARI,\n RESIDENT OF PUSP NIWAS, VILLAGE PRODI, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n KAMLANAGAR, SANJAULI, SHIMLA PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) SHOGHI.\n\n 149. INDIRA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KOTI, POST OFFICE PAURIA, TEHSIL CHOPAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KOTI-KIARNOO.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 125\n\n\n 150. VINOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI SANT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHEILA, POST OFFICE JHIKNIPUL, TEHSIL CHOPAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL SHEILLA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 151. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE MAIHSHUND, POST OFFICE DEIYA, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n DEIYA.\n\n 152. BALBIR SINGH SON OF SHRI SITA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KANDA, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n\n\n\n\n\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n KANDA.\n\n 153. MOHAN SINGH SON OF SHRI JHUIAN RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE ARANT, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL HALAN.\n\n 154. VANITA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RANBIR SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n OF VILLAGE GOWA, POST OFFICE DHAR CHANDNA, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n HALAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 155. MADAN SINGH SON OF SHRI ATTER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MANJHOLI, TEHSIL KUPVI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GAUNTH.\n\n 156. ASHA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI MADAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MANJHOLI, TEHSIL KUPVI,\n DISTRICT CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KURIA KARANG,\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SANIO\n DEEDAG.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 126\n\n\n 157. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI BIRBAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DEIYA DOCHI, POST OFFICE DEIYA, TEHSIL CHOPAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL GHLLA U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DEIYA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 158. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHAGMAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KOTI, POST OFFICE PAURIA, TEHSIL NERWA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL MANU, TEHSIL NERWA.\n\n 159. BALWANT SINGH SON OF SHRI SUNDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GIANTI, TEHSIL\n NERWA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL MANU, TEHSIL NERWA.\n\n 160. VIRENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI KEWAL RAM, RESIDENT\n\n OF VILLAGE KATANGAN, POST OFFICE THAROCH, TEHSIL\n NERWA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THAROCH.\n\n 161. SANDEEP KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAVI DUTT, RESIDENT\n\n\n OF HOUSE NO. 37, RAMA (109) TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAMA.\n\n\n\n\n 162. LEKH RAJ SON OF SHRI TEJBIR SINGH RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SHANHA POST OFFICE BIRLA, TEHSIL DADAHU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BADHEL MADHANA.\n\n 163. NARENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI OM PRAKASH RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOLAR, SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PALHORI.\n\n 164. SHAILJA GUPTA WIFE OF ARUN KUMAR SINGHAL,\n RESIDENT OF 72, MIA KA MANDIR, NEAR BUS STAND, WARD\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 127\n\n\n NO. 11, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KHAIRI.\n\n 165. SAITSH KUMAR SON OF KISHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHIRATH, POST OFFICE BANETHI, TEHSIL NAHAN,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL APRON.\n\n 166. PAPINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI CHIRANJI LAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHKAMPUR, NAWADA, (106)\n SHIVPUR, SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL AGRON.\n\n\n\n\n\n 167. VIKRAM SINGH SON OF SHRI NAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KATHWAR, TEHSIL KANSA,\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL SHAROG.\n\n 168. KAMAL SINGH SON OF BHAG SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOLAR, TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHAROG\n BANERI.\n\n 169. VINITA TOMAR WIFE OF KUNDAL SINGH RESIDENT OF H.\n\n\n\n\n NO. 43/21, PAKKA TANK, (BLOCK NNO. 22) TEHSIL NAHAN,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANETHI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 170. SUREKHA DEVI WIFE OF SUDESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NAGHETA (43) TEHSIL PAONTA\n SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAGHETA.\n\n 171. NAVITA WIFE OF BHUPENDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF H.\n NO. 35, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOLAR (162) PAONTA\n SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 128\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL LOHGARH.\n\n 172. SUCHETA BHARDWAJ DAUGHTER OF RAJENDER\n KUMAR, RESIDENT OF H. NO. 392/8, AMAR NIKUNG,\n MOHALLA RANITAL, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED ASTGTNM.. AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BASAHAN.\n\n 173. SATYAPAL SHARMA SON OF SHRI DEVI DUTT SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAILI, POST OFFICE THANA KASOGA,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL DADAHU, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DHAILI.\n\n 174. VIJENDER KUMAR SON OF LUXMI DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BIRLA, TEHSIL DADAHU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PPAT TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL JABBAL KA BAG.\n\n 175. JAI PARKASH SHARMA SON OF JEET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE BAMAL KAKOG (107), TEHSIL SANGRAH, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL DHAILI.\n\n\n\n 176. SURESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI GOPAL SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHARNA, TEHSIL\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHARNA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 177. SUMAN KASHYAP WIFE OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DEOTHI-PANCHAL, POST OFFICE RERUGHATI,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GHANDOORI.\n\n 178. KIRAN KUMARI DAUGHTER OF TARA SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DEVA-MANAL, TEHSIL\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 129\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DEVA-\n MANAL.\n\n 179. LAJWANTI WIFE OF ASHOK KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n .\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) GOVERNMENT HIGH\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL DEVNA THANGI, U/S GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL NOHRADHAR.\n\n 180. DHIRAJ BANSAL SON OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL DADAHU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL)\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KHALAKYAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 181. RUPINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI PRITHVI SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DABURI TIKKER, POST OFFICE THANA\n KASOGA, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n\n TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n MAHIPUR.\n\n 182. DAULAT RAM SON OF KANSH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHOUBNAGAR, POST OFFICE KOTIDHAMAN, TEHSIL\n DADAHU, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, GAWANGO, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHATGARH.\n\n\n\n\n 183. BALINDER SINGH SON OF KALYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHOU,POST OFFICE KOTIDHIMAN, TEHSIL DADAHU,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 184. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SUNDER LAL, RESIDENT\n OF LATE SUNDER LAL, NEAR ELECTRICITY COLONY, VILLAGE,\n POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL DADAHU, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL BANSHOTI.\n\n 185. RITA KUMARI WIFE OF VICKRAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SANGRAH, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 130\n\n\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAINJ.\n\n 186. BANDNA SHARMA WIFE OF RAJKUMAR SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SANGRAH,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL)\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BARLI.\n\n 187. LALITA KUMARI WIFE OF RAJESH CHAUHAN, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF MKIG-32, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, NAHAN, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SANGRAH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 188. KAMLESH KUMARI WIFE OF LEKH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE RANFUA, POST OFFICE ANDHERI, TEHSIL SANGRAH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAMAL DOCHI.\n\n 189. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAMANAND SAGAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHATTAN\n BHAJOND, TEHSIL NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n\n\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL GATLOG.\n\n 190. NARAYAN SINGH SON OF SHRI JAGAT SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE KANDI, POST OFFICE SHILLAI, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DAYA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 191. ANIL KUMAR SON OF MOHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n GHASAN, POST OFFICE GWALI, TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KANDIYARI.\n\n 192. DALIP SINGH NEGI SON OF SHRI MADAN SINGH NEGI,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOILA, POST OFFICE BALI-KOTI,\n TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 131\n\n\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KUSENU U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KANDIYAR.\n\n 193. SURESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAGDISH CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUDER, POST OFFICE NARAG,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS)\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SHARIA U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL WASNI.\n\n 194. SURESH SHARMA SON OF SHRI ATMA RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE KHAZIAR, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL KAMRAU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOWKI-\n MRIGWAL.\n\n\n r to\n 195. SURESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SANT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BARWAS, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL KAMRAU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOWKI\n\n MRIGWAL.\n\n 196. AJAY KUMAR SON OF GUMAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BARWAS, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL KAMRAU,\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BARWAS.\n\n\n\n\n 197. PRATAP SINGH SON OF BISHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MASHWA, POST OFFICE KANTI, TEHSIL KAMRAU,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOWKI\n\n\n\n\n\n MRIGWAL.\n\n 198. VIKRAM SINGH SON OF SHRI INDER SING, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AMBAN, POST OFFICE KORGA, TEHSIL KAMRAU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SADIAR.\n\n 199. DEV DUTT PRASHAR SON OF SOM DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHUKKAR, POST OFFICE DHANGYAR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 132\n\n\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n MEHNDO BAGH.\n\n 200. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF NARAYAN DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE TIKKAR, POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SIRMOURI\n MANDIR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 201. BALI RAM, SON OF PRITHVI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JAIHAR, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL RAJYON.\n\n 202. DHIRENDER SINGH KASHYAP SON OF TARA DUTT\n KASHYAP, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAJHYANA, POST OFFICE\n\n NAINA TIKKER, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n\n GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL LAJHOGARI.\n\n 203. ABHISHEK SON OF NITYA NAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n MORTHECHI, POST OFFICE HABBAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MEHAR BAG.\n\n\n\n\n 204. SURESH KUMAR SON OF KHEM RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE TALICHOG, POST OFFICE CHHOGTOLI, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n\n\n\n\n\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n CHHAGTOLI.\n\n 205. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SANT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHAMANDHAR, POST OFFICE BHAROLI, RAJGARH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS GTA. AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n GIANKOT.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 133\n\n\n 206. ASHA DEVI DAUGHTER OF AMIN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KOTI PASHOG, POST OFFICE BHAROLI, RAJGARH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DHAMANDAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 207. RAM KARN SON OF SHRI RAM RATTAN, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JOGHON, TEHSIL NALAGARH,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MALAINI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 208. CHARANJEET SINGH SON OF SHRI HARBANS SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JOGHON, TEHSIL NALAGARH,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n HIGH SCHOOL MALAINI.\n\n 209. BHAG SINGH SON OF SHRI BUDH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KANOYALA, NICHLA, POST OFFICE GUNAHA KALAN,\n\n TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL OUNTPUR.\n\n 210. UMA DEVI DAUGHTER OF ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SUNLIRUG, POST OFFICE LAGDAGHAT, TEHSIL\n\n\n RAMSHEHAR, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GMSSS RAMSHEHAR.\n\n\n\n\n 211. HARI BALLABH SON OF SHRI JAGAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOHARI, TEHSIL NALAGARH,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL KOHUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 212. SURENDER KUMAR SON OF JADH SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SEOTA, POST OFFICE TANBOL, TEHSIL SHRI NAINA\n DEVI JI, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KOHU.\n\n 213. KAMAL DEV SON OF SHRI ISHWAR DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GUNAHA KALAN, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 134\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MITTIAN.\n\n 214. JOGINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KHARPANA, POST OFFICE NAND, TEHSIL\n RAMSHEHAR, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAND.\n\n 215. MUKESH KUAMR SON OF JIT RAM SHARMA, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LAGDAGHAT, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n RAMSHEHAR, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LAGDAGHAT.\n\n 216. MANJEET KAUR WIFE OF SHRI AVTAR SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE BHATOLI KALAN, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL BHATOLI KALAN.\n\n 217. GANESH DUTT SON OF LEKH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE DHAR-JOKHARI, POST OFFICE DARWA, TEHSIL\n KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DARWA.\n\n\n\n 218. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI MADAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GHARSI, TEHSIL KASAULI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DARWA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 219. DESH RAJ SON OF SHRI GOPAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PANEWA, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MANJHAL.\n\n 220. NEERAJ SON OF BHARAT KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BATAL, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHAYLA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 135\n\n\n 221. LALITA WIFE OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHAYAVANI, KAMTHARUAN, TEHSIL KUTHER,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL BADHOKHARI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 222. NARESH CHAND SON OF SHRI RAM CHAND, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE MALGAN, POST OFFICE THANA, TEHSIL BADDI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANAL MAJRA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 223. SEEMA RANI SON OF HARDEEP SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n NEW NALAGARH ABHIPUR, POST OFFICE RAJPURA, TEHSIL\n NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n\n\n\n\n\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n CHANAL MAJRA.\n\n 224. SAMRITI THAKUR WIFE OF SHRI ANIL KAUNDAL,\n\n RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 9, NALAGARH, POST OFFICE AND\n TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BARUNA.\n\n\n 225. PUSHPA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI VINOD KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE ADNDROLA UPERLA, POST OFFICE PANJEHRA,\n TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n\n\n\n\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KOTHI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 226. AJAY KUMAR SON OF SUDAMA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MAYANA, POST OFFICE DHUDIN, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL NAGALI.\n\n 227. SANDEEP KUMAR SON OF RAM SAROOP, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JHAJA, POST OFFICE JHAJA, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GHANTI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 136\n\n\n 228. AARTI KAUSHAL WIFE OF SHRI PADAM DEV, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANJEHRA, TEHSIL\n NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PANJEHRA DERIG.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 229. SOHAN LAL SON OF SHRI BAGGA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RATWARI, TEHSIL NALAGARH,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL KOTHI.\n\n 230. DARSHAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI BRAHMA NAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAWANGRAM, POST OFFICE JHAJRA,\n TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n RERU. r\n 231. DEEPAK SHARMA SON OF SHRI NAND KISHORE SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RAMSHEHAR,\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL RAMPUR PASWALAN.\n\n\n 232. HANSA DEVI WIFE OF RAKESH SHARMA, RESIDENT OF\n SARASWATI NIWAS, GROUND FLOOR, KOTLA NALA, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL OACHGHAT.\n\n\n\n\n\n 233. DINESH SHARMA SON OF CHET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SUHNI, POST OFFICE CHAKKAR, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SHERA KANETA.\n\n 234. PINKI DEVI DAUGHTER OF SUDHIR CHANDEL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BAROT, TEHSIL BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL PAKOTI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 137\n\n\n 235. LALIT KUMAR SON OF CHET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DADAL, POST OFFICE BHUMTI, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHUMTI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 236. PARDEEP KUMAR VERMA SON OF TEJ RAM VERMA,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENTOF VILLAGE SAI, POST OFFICE BALRA, TEHSIL\n ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BALNA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 237. TULSI RAM SON OF SHRI OM PRAKASH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHUNER BHARMA, POST OFFICE BHUMTI, TEHSIL\n ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JABRI.\n\n 238. MADAN LAL SON OF SHRI RAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAYRI, POST OFFICE MATERNNI, TEHSIL ARKI,\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANI MATERNI.\n\n 239. KUSUM LATA WIFE OF SHRI DEEP RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JOBRI, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT\n\n\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL JOBRI.\n\n\n\n\n 240. KHAMENDER SHARMA SON OF SHRI NAND LAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAMOH, POST OFFICE SHROL, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BASANTPUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 241. MEHAR SINGH SON OF SHRI LEKH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SUKHOR, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL BALDWARA,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SAPROON.\n\n 242. UPASANA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHEOTHAL, POST OFFICE SHAMTI,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 138\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS)\n SOLAN.\n\n 243. MANJU BALA WIFE OF SHRI VIRENDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DABBOOR, POST OFFICE BANAH KI\n\n\n\n\n .\n SER, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GAURA TEHSIL KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 244. ARUNA WIFE OF UMESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n NEAR BDO OFFICE BHIULI, POST OFFICE PURANI MANDI,\n TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PANDOH, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 245. RUKMANI WIFE OF SHRI VINOD KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TANDU, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESHPRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BADAUN, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KATAULA, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 246. BANITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF KISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SEGLI, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESHPRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TIHRI, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH.\n\n 247. LATA DEVI WIFE OF NIME RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n AND POST OFFICE TIHRI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KATAULA, MANDI.\n\n 248. SOHAN SINGH SON OF SHRI LALA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHHOTA BUNAR, POST OFFICE KALHANI, TEHSIL\n BALI CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KUKLAH, U/C\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 139\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANDHAL\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 249. KHEM RAJ SON OF SHRI LALA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHHOTA BUNAR, POST OFFICE KALHANI, TEHSIL\n BALI CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KUKLAH, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANDHAL,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 250. KULDEEP KUMAR SON OF SHRI HIRA SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE TAMBI, POST OFFICE KHALANOO, TEHSIL KOTLI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAGA CHANOGI,\n\n\n\n\n\n THACH, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 251. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI KANSHI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SERI KOTHI, TEHSIL\n\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,\n SERIKOTHI, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 252. GOVIND RAM SON OF SHRI INDER DEV, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n VILLAGE DIDER, POST OFFICE KHALWAN, TEHSIL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANDHAL,\n\n\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n 253. SANGEETA WIFE OF YOGINDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE BANGLERA, POST OFFICE KAPAHI, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PATSAN, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KAPLAHI,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 254. POONAM WIFE OF SHRI RAVINDER, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SAMBAL, PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KATAULA, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 140\n\n\n 255. MEG SINGH SON OF SHRI BIRJA SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PRALI KARERI, TEHSIL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SARANAL U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THALAUT, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 256. JAGAT RAM SON OF SHRI NATHU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n ROPARI, POST OFFICE JAROL, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL)\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PANJALATH U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATWARA,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 257. MANJU KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI CHANDER KANT,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANDHI, POST OFFICE ROHANDA,\n TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n (ARTS) GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHADYARA, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAGALA,\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 258. KAMLA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI MAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n BANOG, POST OFFICE PALI, TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL SILAG, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 259. KIRAN KUMARI WIFE OF PAWAN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BABLI PADWAN, TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL GWALI, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n 260. LABH SINGH SON OF SHRI BELLI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHARWAHAN, POST OFFICE KUFRI, TEHSIL PADHAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL NAGAN, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 261. AJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI DURGA DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GHAWAPA, POST OFFICE KUNNU, TEHSIL PADHAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 141\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHAR, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 262. HEM SINGH SON OF SHRI HARU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KUFRI, TEHSIL PADHAR,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHAR, MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 263. BUDHI PRAKASH SON OF SHRI HARI SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KADUNDI, POST OFFICE CHUKKU, TEHSIL\n PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHAKKU,\n\n\n\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 264. DINESH KUMAR VERMA SON OF KIRHSN CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHANDHARU, POST OFFICE GEHRA,\n\n TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PIPLI HAWANI U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KABRI\n DHALWAN, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n 265. KRISHAN KANT SON OF SHRI LED RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BALALA, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL AUT, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n HIGH SCHOOL TEPAR, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 266. DEVINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI LED RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BALALA, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL AUT, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHUHAN,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 267. MAHESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI DILE RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KHALWAHAN, TEHSIL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SUDHRANI, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 142\n\n\n 268. MUKESH KUMAR SON OF TEJ SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAKHALI, POST OFFICE SAROA, TEHSIL CHACHYOT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANDAL, MANDI, HP.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 269. SHIV LAL SHARMA SON OF SHRI JOR SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE TANDI, POST OFFICE SAROA, TEHSIL CHACHYOT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL THAUT U/C GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAROA, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 270. SHAILJA THAKUR WIFE OF HITESH KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANARSA, TEHSIL AUT,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESHPRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BHAMSAI BHAMSOI, MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 271. DHARAMVIR SON OF KEHAR SINGH RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGEKUMKAR, POST OFFICE DRUBBEL, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BASSI\n\n\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 272. JAGDISH CHAND SON OF LABH SINGH, RESIENT OF\n VILLAGE DHAGOUN, POST OFFICE KULATI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n\n\n\n\n\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n DRUBBAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 273. SUMAN KUMAR SON OF PREM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHIMNU, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BHAGEHAR LONGESAR.\n\n 274. MEETU THAKUR DAUGHTETR OF MEGH THAKUR\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAUN, POST OFFICE BHARADU,\n TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 143\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MAKRERI.\n\n 275. RUVIN KUMAR SON OF KASHMIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG BANAIN, POST OFFICE JALPEHAR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n .\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KHUDDAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 276. AMIT KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BAILLA, POST OFFICE DRAHAL, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n BHARADU.\n\n 277. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF INDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE THAPRI POST OFFICE BIHUN, TEHSIL\n\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BIHUN.\n\n 278. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI NARAIN, RESIDENT OF POST\n\n\n OFFICE KHADDAR, TEHSIL LAD BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LAD BHADOL.\n\n\n\n\n 279. AJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI RANBIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE CHHO, POST OFFICE LANGNA, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS AT TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL TULLAD.\n\n 280. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI DESH RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHULLA, TEHSIL LAD BHADOL,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL KHADDAR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 144\n\n\n 281. JEET SINGH SON OF SHRI AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAG, POST OFFICE PANDOL, TEHSIL LAD BHADOL,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL BAG PANDOL.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 282. MEHAR SINGH SON OF SHRI KRISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE SINHALI, POST OFFICE KHADDAR, TEHSIL LAD\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJALAG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 283. SHRAVAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI DIN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KAQLEHARU, POST OFFICE KOLANG, TEHSIL LAD\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KOLANG.\n\n 284. SANTOSH KUMAR RANA SON OF SHRI MANI RAM RANA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATKOL, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n\n LAD BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BALOTU.\n\n 285. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI SITA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GAHARO, POST OFFICE KHAJOOR, TEHSIL LAD\n\n\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHUDDI.\n\n\n\n\n 286. BYASA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MANGYAL, POST OFFICE KHADDAR, TEHSIL LAD\n\n\n\n\n\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJALAG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 287. SANTOSH KUMARI WIFE OF ANIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SILH, POST OFFICE KHAZOR, TEHSIL LAD BHADOL,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHUDDI.\n\n 288. OMA DUTT SON OF SHRI INDER DEV, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BALI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSI NIHRI, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 145\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHUNGI, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 289. PAVAN KUMAR THAKUR SON OF SHRI DAULAT RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHILLI SERI, POST OFFICE MAHOG,\n\n\n\n\n .\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL RICHHANI, MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 290. MAHESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI PREM SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE JHARYAL, POST OFFICE MAINDHI, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAINDHI,\n\n\n\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 291. JAGDISH SON OF SHRI PIRDU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAMAND, POST OFFICE MAINDHI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAINDHI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 292. YASHWANT SINGH SON OF SHRI FAGNU RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n OF KANOCHA POST OFFICE SOMA KOTHI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL CHAURIDHAR, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 293. CHHAIMA DEVI DAUGHTER OF HARI SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JHUNGI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHUNGI, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 294. UTTAM CHAND SON OF SHRI CHUNI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BASHAL, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL CHIRAL, MINAH, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 146\n\n\n 295. KIRAT RAM SON OF SHRI TULA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SERI BUNGALOW, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MAHASUDHAR, KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 296. HET RAM SON OF MANMOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LAHARLA, POST OFFICE MAHOG, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL POKHI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 297. HANS RAJ SON OF GANGA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n HAIT, POST OFFICE BIHANI, TEHSIL CHHATRI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESHPRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL CHAPLANDIDHAR, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 298. DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI NAR SINGH DASS,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAKROL, POST OFFICE KAHNU,\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n KUNHOO, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n 299. TARA CHAND SON OF SHRI TEJ RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LALOG, POST OFFICE KAO, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LALAG, KARSOG, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 300. LUDER MANI SON OF SHRI LABHESHWAR SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THAKUR THANA, POST OFFICE SOMA\n KOTHI, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SHORSHAN, KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 301. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GRAOURU, POST OFFICE RISSA, TEHSIL\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 147\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BRANG.\n\n 302. ARUN KUMAR SON OF VIDYA SAGAR RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE, MAHISH, PO. BARI THE & DISTT. KULLU. HP.\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GHS. CHANSARI U/C GSSS KHARAHAL.\n\n 303. AMBER CHAND SON OF SH. GEHRU RAM, VILLAGE\n BLOHONI THE. & DISTT. KULLU H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GHS. BASTORI-II\n U/C SARI BHEKHLI.\n\n 304. RAGHUBIR SON OF SH. DALER SINGH, VILL. SHAKOHER\n PO. PEEJ TEH. & DISTT. KULLU H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GSSS. PEEJ.\n\n 305. DOLA RAM SON OF SH. NIKA RAM VILL. BANDAL PO PUID\n TEH. & DISTT. KULLU H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GSSS KHARAHAL.\n\n 306. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SH. NEEL CHAND VILL. BATEHAR\n JANA PO ARCHANDI TEH. & DISTT KULLU HP PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GHS.\n ARCHANDI U/C GSSS NATHAN.\n\n\n\n 307. PUNESH KUMAR SON OF SH. NARAYAN LAL VPO BEASAR\n TEH. & DISTT. KULLU H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GMS BEASAR U/C GSSS\n\n\n\n\n RAISON.\n\n\n\n\n\n 308. SANGRAM SINGH SON OF SH. ROOM SINGH VILL.\n MARGHAN PO. BHALYANI TEH. & DISTT. KULLU HP\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GSSS BHALYANI.\n\n 309. DINESH KUMAR SON OF SH. BAINI PRASAD VILLAGE\n DASHAL PO. HARIPUR TEH. & DISTT. KULLU HP PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GMS SOLANG U/C GHS PALCHAN.\n\n 310. RATTAN CHAND SON OF SH. KARAM CHAND THAKUR\n VILL. CHHOYAL PO. KHOKHAN TEH. & DISTT. KULLU HP\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 148\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) GSSS FOZAL.\n\n 311. RITA KUMARI SON OF SH. JEET RAM VILL. DWARA PO\n DOBHI TEH. & DISTT. KULLU HP PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GMS HALLAN-II,\n\n\n\n\n .\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KATRAIN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 312. YOG RAJ SON OF SHRI MEHAR CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PUJAN, POST OFFICE BRAN, TEHSIL MANALI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BRAN.\n\n 313. DALEEP KUMAR SON OF LOT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHOSH, POST OFFICE HARIPUR, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL SARSAI, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL HARIPUR.\n\n 314. RAJENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHIKHAM DASS,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KULANG, POST OFFICE PALCHAN,\n TEHSIL MANALI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL PALCHAN.\n\n\n\n 315. TIKAM SAIN SON OF SHRI GANGA LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHAGAON, SUB TEHSIL TAPRI,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BARA KAMBA, KINNAUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 316. BHAGWAN DASSI WIFE OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DUNI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KALPA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NATHPA.\n\n 317. RATTAN PAYARI DAUGHTER OF SUNDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF NEAR GENERAL POST OFFICE REKONG PEO,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PURBANI, KINNAUR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 149\n\n\n 318. SWETA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF JAYOTI LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GIABANG, TEHSIL POOH,\n DISTRCT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL KAMROO.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 319. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF RAJINDER SINGH, PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS)\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL LABRANG, POOH, DISTRCT\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 320. ANITA KUMARI WIFE OF JASMOHAN, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KALPA, DISTRICT KINNAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n KAFNOO, KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n r to\n 321. REENA MEHTA DAUGHTER OF BHAJAN SINGH MEHTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE C/KAMBA, TEHSIL\n NICHAR, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHHOLTU, DISTRICT\n\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 322. KAMAL KISHORE SON OF MAHINDER SINGH, RESIENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RAKCHHAM, TEHSIL SANGLA,\n\n\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAKCHHAM.\n\n\n\n\n 323. POOJA THAKUR WIFE OF RAJESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RAKCHHAM, TEHSIL SANGLA,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, RAKCHHAM.\n\n\n\n\n\n 324. BALBIR SINGH SON OF SHRI BASU DEV, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BANO, POST OFFICE SUNGRA, TEHSIL NICHAR,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL PANVI.\n\n 325. KIRAN KUMARI WIFE OF SURGA PRAKASH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KILBA, TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 150\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHHOLTU.\n\n 326. SANGEETA KUMARI WIFE OF ASHISH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SAPNI, TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n .\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAPNI.\n\n 327. ARUN THAKUR SON OF SHRI VISHAN SINGH THAKUR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE THILL, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n THAKUR DWARA, TEHSIL INDORA, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 328. POOJA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHAKTI PRAKASH\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALH, POST OFFICE\n KOHLAL, TEHSIL JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GSS.. BHAROLI,\n\n TEHSIL JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 329. VIKAS WALIA SON OF SHRI KANWARJEET WALIA,\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BALAKRUPI,\n TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n BALAHRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 330. ASHWANI JAGGI SON OF SHRI RANVIR SINGH JAGGI,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHACHHAL JAGGIAN, POST OFFICE\n AND TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MUNGAL.\n\n 331. RAJNEESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI GIAN CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DUKH, TEHSIL\n THURSDAY PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DUHAK, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 151\n\n\n 332. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF JOGINDER KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JIND, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JOIND, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 333. SURINDER KUAMR SON OF SHRI MADHO RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE LANGHA, POST OFFICE JALAG, TEHSIL\n JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DRAMAN, KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 334. PUNEET NANGLA SON OF PARAS RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GHAR-JAROT, TEHSIL JAWALI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BALDOA,\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 335. SANDEEP KUMAR SON OF SHRI SURESH CHAND,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SULHPUR, POST OFFICE BAMLA,\n TEHSIL BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n CHHAKOH, BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 336. KESHAV BHARDWAJ SON OF SHRI LEKH RAM\n BHARDWAJ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHALYANA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n AND TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n\n\n\n\n\n TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL , MALYAWAR, BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 337. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI SHER SINGH THAKUR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUHAL KHATTAL, POST OFFICE\n NAMHOL, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE\n TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL TEPRA, BILASPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 338. POONAM VERMA WIFE OF BHIM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SURAJPUR, POST OFFICE PIPLUGHAT, TEHSI ARKI,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 152\n\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL TEPRA KHAS.\n\n 339. SUDERSHAN CHAUHAN SON OF LATE MAST RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THANA, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n .\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL THOOTH.\n\n 340. NARENDER KUMAR SON OF SITA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KIARI, POST OFFICE SARAIN, TEHSIL CHOPAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SHILLAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 341. RENU DEVI WIFE OF LAYAK RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n BIUNA, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n SHILLAN.\n\n\n 342. BIRBAL JHAGTA SON OF LAYAK RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILAGE THIYARA, POST OFFICE PODAN, TEHSIL NERWA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS AT TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL THIYARA.\n\n 343. SAROJA DEVI WIFE OF MANOJ KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JHIR, POST OFFICE GEHRA, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GEHRA.\n\n 344. NEELAM VERMA WIFE OF SURENDER SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE KHARKA, POST OFFICE BALU, TEHSIL AUT,\n DSITRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BALU.\n\n 345. NARENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI SAGAR SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ARANG, POST OFFICE BATHERI,\n TEHSIL KATAULA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL ARANG.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 153\n\n\n 346. HEM LATA WIFE OF DR. SUSHIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n ROPARU, POST OFFICE BASONA, TEHSIL LAD BHADOL,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHARAPATT.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 347. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHRAVAN KUMAR RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DADH, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL GOPALPUR, U/C GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JIYA.\n\n 348. SURINDER KUMAR SON OF PRAKASH CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE SUGH TAKANA, POST OFFICE MANDOLI, TEHSIL\n NURPUR, DITSRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SAHAURA. r\n 349. SNEH LATA WIFE OF VED KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHARMALA, POST OFFICE NITHAR DISTRICT KULLU,\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL KANDUGADE.\n\n\n 350. JANAM SINGH SON OF LAXMI CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LUJ BISTHOW, TEHSIL PANGI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL LUJ U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHARWAS.\n\n\n\n\n\n 351. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHAGWAN CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHALWAS, POST OFFICE KARYAS,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL PANGI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KARYAS PANGI.\n\n 352. KAILASH KUMAR SON OF JAGDEV RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TAKWAS, POST OFFICE KILLAR, TEHSIL PANGI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL REI PANGI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 154\n\n\n 353. AMIT KOUNDIL SON OF SIS RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAEG\n JAMOG, POST OFFICE JUNI, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANDHORGHAT.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 354. BINTU RAM SON OF KEHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE GOWAILA, POST OFFICE SANDHOLE, TESIL\n SANDHOLE, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOLSANDHA, U/C\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL OOTPUR.\n\n 355. LALIT KUMAR GANDHI SON OF SHRI NAGENDER CHAND\n AND HIS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KASHLOG,\n TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KASHLOG.\n\n 356. URMILA DEVI WIFE OF LACHHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE KHARSHI KANAITA, POST OFFICE SAI KHARSHI,\n TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KASHLOG.\n\n 357. SNEH LATA DAUGHTER OF SHRI CHANDER SINGH,\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GIABANG, TEHSIL\n POOH, DISTRCT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RIBBA.\n\n\n\n\n 358. SATYA DEVI WIFE OF RAGHUVIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n NH 22, NEAR BEATTH CENTRE, SIKBA TEHSIL POOH, DISTRCT\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RIBBA.\n\n 359. GOVIND SHARMA SON OF SHRI PURAN SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUFTU, POST OFFICE MUNDAGHAT,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KOTI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 155\n\n\n 360. USHA KIRAN WIFE OF SHRI DAYANAND SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUFTU, POST OFFICE MUNDAGHAT,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHARARIYA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 361. SHILPA JASWAL WIFE OF DR. MAHESH JASWAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF SAI ASHRAM, BARIULA, POST OFFICE RAURI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MUNDAGHAT.\n\n\n\n\n\n 362. SANJEEV VERMA SON OF MOHAN SINGH FVERMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAGHERI, POST OFFICE, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KIHARI U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THEOG.\n\n 363. NAND KISHOR SON OF SHRI JITENDER SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n OF VILLAGE SAREHI, POST OFFICE PANGNA, SUB TEHSIL\n PANGNA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHHANDYARA.\n\n 364. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI HARI SARAN, RESIDENT\n\n\n OF VILLAGE JHAGYAR, POST OFFICE BAKHROT, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAKHROT.\n\n\n\n\n 365. SUNITA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF ANIL KUMAR, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SERI BUNGALOW, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHANKAR\n DEHRA.\n\n 366. SURESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI KHEM SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE JAOGI, POST OFFICE BHANTHAL, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHANTHAL.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 156\n\n\n 367. YASHWANT SINGH SON OF SHRI DASMI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE JARY, POST OFFICE KASONA, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUNGASH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 368. RANJEET SINGH SON OF SHRI PRATAP SINH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE DAGAN, POST OFFICE PEOG, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUNGASH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 369. YASHWANT SINGH SON OF SHRI KURAM DUTT RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANJAIN, TEHSIL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHALAUHATI.\n\n 370. MAHESHWAR SINGH SON OF DILA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANJAIN, TEHSIL BALI CHOWKI,\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n HIGH SCHOOL MUHLU KHARMRADHA.\n\n 371. KARAM SINGH SON OF SHRI PREM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAGITHACH, POST OFFICE PANJAIN, TEHSIL BALI\n\n\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SARLI, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJAIN SARAJ-2.\n\n\n\n\n 372. KRISHAN LAL SON OF SHRI SHIV LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE NOHRI, POST OFFICE SANORA, TEHSIL RAJGARH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SANORA.\n\n 373. GYAN SWAROOP SON OF SHRI THAKUR DASS, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DHAROLI, POST OFFICE SHARGAON, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL RANAGHAT,\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHARGAON.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 157\n\n\n 374. SATYENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI MAHENDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAI-NETTI, POST OFFICE SHARGAON,\n TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NAI-NETTI U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHARGAON.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 375. PANKAJ SHARMA SON OF SHRI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SHARGAON, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NAI-NETTI U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHARGAON.\n\n 376. NEELAM KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI PRADEEP RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NAI-NETTI, POST OFFICE SHARGAON, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NAI NETTI U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHARGAON.\n\n 377. MANJU BALA DAUGHTER OF SHRI INDER SINGH,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SANORA, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n SANORA.\n\n 378. ANITA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI ANIL DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE VHARUT, POST OFFICE NARAG, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MALHOTI.\n\n 379. SUNEEL SON OF SUR CAHND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND\n\n\n\n\n\n POST OFFICE TRILOKINATH, DSITRICT LAHUL & SPITI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL KISHOBI.\n\n 380. TARAR DEVI WIFE OF PRADEEP RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE NGANG, DISTRICT LAHUL & SPITI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GSSS, GHOSAL.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 158\n\n\n 381. ANITA DEVI WIFE OF PRADEEP KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO. 3, VILLAGE DHAWANSHA, TEHSIL KEYLONG,\n DISTRICT LAHUL AND SPIRI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BARING.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 382. ANITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF JAGDEV RAM, C/O BUDHI\n\n\n\n\n\n RAM KUTHAL, (48) CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER\n (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BARING.\n\n\n\n\n\n 383. TANZIN SON OF SHRI TEN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n CHURPUL, POST OFFICE KARPAL, DISTRICT LAHUL & SPITI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL TINGRIT.\n\n\n\n\n\n 384. RAVINDER KUMAR SON OF GIAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NANGAL KALAN, TEHSIL HAROLI,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NANGAL KALAN.\n\n 385. KAVITA DAUGHTER OF PARDUMAN SINGH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE HEERA NAGAR, POST OFFICE DULEHAR, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DULEHAR.\n\n 386. SURINDER KUMAR SON OF SANSAR CHAND, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SALOH, DISTRICT UNA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TGTA. AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SALOH.\n\n 387. SURKESHA DEVI DAUGHTER OF BIHARI LAL, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE GHALOON, TEHSIL BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PIPLOO.\n\n 388. SUSHAM LATA DAUGHTER WARYAM SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NAHRI DEVI SINGH, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ARLOO.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 159\n\n\n 389. SUSHMA DEVI DAUGHTER OF PREM SINGH JAMWAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL BANN.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 390. AJAY KUMAR SON OF TARA CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAEG SALAM, POST OFFICE BASARAL, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT\n GSSS. BASARAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 391. JIWAN KUMAR SON OF MEHAR CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PUTRIAL, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BATAHLI.\n\n 392. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF DALIP CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LAHAR KOTLU, POST OFFICE SUDHIAL, TEHSIL\n\n NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER AT\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GAGWAL-II, KANGRA.\n\n 393. SEEMA DEVI WIFE OF JATINDER KUAMR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE UPPER KHERA TIKA KOTHI,\n\n\n TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DHANIAL.\n\n\n\n\n 394. BABITA KUMARI WIFE OF RAKESH CHANDEL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BADIBELLOUR, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-\n MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GHALOON.\n\n\n\n\n\n 395. REENA KUMARI WIFE OF SATISH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LAHRI, POST OFFICE DUGHA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MEDICAL) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SOHARI.\n\n 396. HARSHA NAND SON OF SHRI RUMA NAND, RESIDENT\n VILLAGE DHANAH, POST OFFICE NITHAR DISTRICT KULLU,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAINED\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 160\n\n\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n ROHA.\n\n 397. SURENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI BISHAN SIGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KHAROTION, POST OFFICE HARIPURDHAR,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL)\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BEYONG.\n\n 398. GULAB SINGH SON OF SHRI CHUNI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KHALOUNI, POST OFFICE SOMA KOTHI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL) AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL RICHHANI.\n\n 399. SUBHASH CHAND SON OF SHRI BELI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n BISHAL, POST OFFICE DIGERH, TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT\n KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS) GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL KUINER U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL DIGERH.\n\n 400. HEMANT KUMAR SON OF SHRI KUNDAN LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NANJ, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL)\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LUHRI.\n\n 401. PANKAJ KUMAR SON OF MEENA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NAMHONG. POST OFFICE KANDGHAI, TEHSIL ANNI,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL)\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KASHTA U/C GMSSS ANI.\n\n 402. KAPIL DEV SON OF SH. PUNNU RAM RESDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KAIL, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRAND\n GRADUATE TEACHER (ARTS)AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL KAIL,\n UNDER CARE OF GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL MAIL.\n\n 403. SANTOSH KUMAR SON OF SH. SUBER CHAND, AGED 43\n YEARS RESDENT OF VILLAGE GROURU POST OFFICE RISSA,\n TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TRAND GRADUATE TEACHER (NON-MEDICAL)AT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 161\n\n\n GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL SAI, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN\n H.P.\n .. PETITIONERS\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE).\n\n AND\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTRY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-\n .. RESPONDENTS\n ( BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n\n\n BETWEEN:\n r to\n 10. CWP NO. 1122 OF 2021\n\n 1. SHEESHU KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI GULWANT SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHAGAON,\n SUB TEHSIL TAPRI, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JONAGE.\n\n\n\n 2. CHANDER KALA WIFE OF SHRI VIKRAM SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUPPA, POST OFFICE KAMROO,\n TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BARANG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. RAJNI BRICE WIFE OF CHANDER GIAN, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SAPNI, TEHSIL SANGLA,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KATGAON.\n\n 4. UDAM SINGH SON OF PALDAN CHHERING, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LIPPA, TEHSIL MOORANG,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LIPPA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 162\n\n\n 5. SANGAY LHUNDUP SON OF NORTAN GYRSO, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LIPPA, TEHSIL\n MOORANG, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL LABRANG (KANAM).\n\n\n\n\n .\n 6. ARJUN SINGH SON OF GANGA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SPILLOW, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRICT KINNAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KANAM.\n\n\n\n\n\n 7. PADMA DOLMA WIFE OF PALDEN SANGE, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LIPPA, TEHSIL MOORANG,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n CHHOLTU.\n\n 8.\n\n\n PREM KUMARI WIFE FO SHRI ANIL KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHAGAON, SUB TEHSIL\n TAPRI, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL SHAKIZANG.\n\n 9. PROMILA DEVI WIFE OF HARI SHANKAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PURVANI, TEHSIL KALPA,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AS LT AT GSSS. REKONG PEO.\n\n 10. DALIP KUAMR SON OF SHER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE POOH, DISTRCT KINNAUR,\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL THANGI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 11. GAMBHIR SINGH SON OF SHRI TANZIN CHEWANG,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KANAM,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL POOH, DISTRCT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL GIABONG.\n\n 12. KAUSHALYA DEVI WIFE OF SH. DHARAM SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PURWANI,\n TEHSIL KALPA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL KHAWANGI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 163\n\n\n 13. MADHU BALA WIFE OF SHRI DHARAM SAIN, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LABRANG, TEHSIL POOH,\n DISTRCT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL THANGI.\n\n 14. USHA RANI WIFE OF AJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LANJHTA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL KANGOS.\n\n\n\n\n\n 15. CHANDER JANGMO DAUGHTER OF CHHEWANG DONDUP,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE KARLA, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRCT KINNAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KANAM.\n\n 16.\n\n\n SURAJ KUMARI WIFE OF VIDYA BHUSHAN RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RIBBA, TEHSIL MOORANG,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL TANGLING.\n\n 17. SNEH LATA DAUGHTER OF PYARE LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE POONANG TEHSIL TAPRI,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n PUNANG.\n\n 18. GAYATRI DEVI DAUGHTER OF MAYA BHAGAT, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SANGLA,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHANSU.\n\n 19. VIJAY LAXMI WIFE OF SHRI OM PRAKASH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARI, TEHSIL NICHAR,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n CHANSU.\n\n 20. RAM DASSI WIFE OF BALBIR SINGH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARO, TEHSIL NICHAR,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SANGLA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 164\n\n\n 21. SNEH LATA DAUGHTER OF SHIV RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE YANGPA, TEHSIL NICHAR,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KATGAON.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 22. SWAMI RAM SON OF AMAR CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BADARAM, POST OFFICE\n GALARE, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL C/KAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 23. RADHIKA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI DEVI SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MOORANG,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL JANGI.\n\n 24. GAUTAM SINGH SON OF BADRI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KALPA, DISTRICT KINNAUR,\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KALPA.\n\n 25. SHYAM KUMAR SON OF DHIYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL KALPA,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n KALPA GAON.\n\n 26. VINOD KUMAR SON OF INDER SAIN, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE C/KAMBA, TESHIL NICHAR,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL C/KAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 27. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF LEKH RAJ, RESIDENT FO\n VILLAGE SUDHWAN, POST OFFICE SUDHWAN, TEHSIL\n NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL B/KAMBA.\n\n 28. RAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOHINDER SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE B/KAMBA, TEHSIL\n NICHAR, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 165\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL BARA KHAMBA.\n\n 29. ARCHANA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF MAHAVEER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KAMROO,\n TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT PET AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KAMROO.\n\n 30. JAGDISH CHAND SON OF CHHERING DHORJE, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NATHPA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n NICHAR, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL NATHPA.\n\n 31. NARESH KUMAR SON OF RAM SAI, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHAGAON, SUB TEHSIL\n TAPRI, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SAPNI, TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT\n\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 32. JOGINDER SINGH SON OF BHAGWAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NESANG, TEHSIL POOH,\n DISTRCT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n\n\n NESANG.\n\n 33. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF PRAKASH CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE LARHA, POST OFFICE GALORE, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n GALORE, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL GARSHU.\n\n 34. ASHOK DOGRA SON OF GIAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE CHANDRAYAN POST OFFICE SADHOT, TESHIL\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LIYO.\n\n 35. BYAS BHAGTI WIFE OF DR. BALJIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NARANG, TEHSIL POOH,\n DISTRCT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 166\n\n\n SCHOOL MEERU CHOLING, TEHSIL NICHAR, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 36. KUSHAL CHAND SON OF SHRI DHARAMPAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RANDAL, TEHSIL\n NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RARANG, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 37. GAUTAM SON OF CHANDAN LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n AND POST OFFICE RAMNI, TEHSIL NICHAR, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KAFNOO.\n\n 38. PHOOL WATI WIFE OF SHRI SHAMSHER SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANVI, TEHSIL\n NICHAR, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL CHAURA.\n\n 39. RAJ PRAKASH SON OF SHRI GANGA BHAGAT, RESIDENT\n\n OF NEAR BEARING NAG TEMPLE, SANGLA WARD NO. 1,\n POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SANGLA U/C\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SANGLA.\n\n 40. SUBHADRA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI KAMAL SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n .. PETITIONERS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE\n GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 167\n\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, KINNAUR\n AT REKONG PEO, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH\n .. RESPONDENTS\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE\n\n\n\n\n .\n GENERAL)\n\n\n\n\n\n 11. CWP NO. 1123 OF 2021\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. SANDEEP KUMAR SON OF SHRI KASHMIRI LAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AMBEHRA, TEHSIL\n BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED ACADEMIC SESSION. AT G.SSS AMBEHRA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. PRAVEEN KUMAR SON OF HARDAS SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOWER PANJAWAR, TEHSIL\n HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KADH.\n\n 3. SUNITA NEENAMSKARI DAUGHTER OF SHIV KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SANTOKHGARH,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AS OT AT UNA.\n\n 4. REETA PRASHAR DAUGHTER OF ASHWANI KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SALOH, ISPUR,\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL ISPUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 5. YADWINDER SINGH SON OF NAZER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SANTOKHGARH, UNA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL ISPUR.\n\n 6. RAMAN KUMAR SON OF CHARAN DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LALHARI, TEHSIL HAROLI,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL LOWER LALHARI.\n\n 7. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF RAMASRA, RESIENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE DHARAMPUR, TEHSIL HAROLI, DISTRICT\n UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 168\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL SALOH.\n\n 8. BALBINDER SINGH SON OF GULZAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHADSALI, TEHSIL HAROLI,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n .\n PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n BHADSALI.\n\n 9. SATPAL SON OF RAM ASRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE BHADSALI, TEHSIL HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHADSALI.\n\n 10. RISHU VERMA SON OF ROHIT VERMA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHANJA, POST OFFICE SUNKALI, DISTRICT UNA,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BHADIARAN.\n\n 11. TARSEM LAL SON OF MOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE ISPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ISPUR.\n\n 12. BINDIA THAKUR DAUGHTER OF ARUN KUMAR RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SALOH, DISTRICT UNA,\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SALOH.\n\n 13. USHA DEVI DAUGHTER OF RUPESH KUMAR, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE POLIABEET, TEHSIL HAROLI,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BHADIARAN.\n\n 14. SURINDER KAUR DAUGHTER OF GURDEV CHAND,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL ISPUR,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n ISPUR.\n\n 15. ATUL KATNORIA SON OF TULSI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANJAWAR, TEHSIL HAROLI,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PANDOGA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 169\n\n\n 16. JATINDER KUMAR SON OF SHIR BIHARI LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAEG AMOKLA PRITAM, POST OFFICE DHALWARI,\n TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n AMOKLA PRITAM.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 17. MUKESH KUMAR SON OF NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JIJJAR, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT\n UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOHARA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 18. RAJNEESH KUMAR SON OF RAMESH CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOWER LOHARA, TEHSIL AMB,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOHARA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 19. ROHIT KALIA SON OF RAVINDER KALIA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JAKHERA, DEFENDANT UNA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL FATEHWAL.\n r PETITIONERS\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n\n\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, UNA,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n .. RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 12. CWP NO. 1127 OF 2021\n\n 1. RAJENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI NEK RAM, AGED 39\n YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATGEHAR, POST OFFICE\n MONDAGHAT, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 170\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL NAGALI.\n\n 2. SANTOSH ANAND SHARMA SON OF CHANDER KANT\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAWARO, TEHSIL JUNGA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n .\n AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JETHNA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. TARUN KUMAR SON OF OM PRAKASH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SKORI POST OFFICE CHAIL, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JETHNA.\n\n 4. HARENDER SON OF HARI KRISHAN RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JHAJHA POST OFFICE CHAIL, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JETHNA.\n\n 5. SUNEEL KUMAR SON OF BABU RAM VERMA, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE MAHOG POST OFFICE CHAIL, TEHSIL\n\n KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n SCHOOL NAGALI U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL CHAIL.\n\n 6. VISHAL SON OF BALWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n SKORI POST OFFICE CHAIL, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SKORI.\n\n\n\n\n 7. SUDESH SON OF GIAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF SKORI, POST\n OFFICE CHAIL, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHAIL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 8. NARENDER SINGH SON OF JAI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHAMBI, TEHSIL JUNGA, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHAIL.\n\n 9. MOHINDER SHARMA SON OF SHRI HIRA PAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KANORI, POST OFFICE CHAIL, TEHSIL\n KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 171\n\n\n SCHOOL BANJANI U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL CHAIL.\n\n 10. VIVEK VERMA SON OF SHRI JYOTI SWROOP, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHANGEEL, TEHSIL\n KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n DHANGEEL.\n\n 11. VINEET MEHTA SON OF INDER KUMAR MEHTA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SKORI, POST OFFICE CHAIL, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL BANJANI U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL CHAIL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 12. ANAND KUMAR SON OF HARI MOHAN RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BANHAR, POST OFFICE JHAJHA TEHSIL\n KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n SCHOOL BHAKHOR.\n\n 13. MADAN LAL SON OF RAM KRISHAN RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PALGEHAR, POST OFFICE MUNDAGHAT, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DHANGEEL.\n\n\n\n 14. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF RAM SWAROOP RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SKORI, POST OFFICE CHAIL, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BANJANI, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHAIL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 15. BHARTI WIFE OF ASHOK KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n SKORI, POST OFFICE CHAIL, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GMS. KANORI, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL CHAIL.\n\n 16. DHIRENDER SHARMA SONOF JAI NAND SHARMA\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KUARAG, TEHSIL\n KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL PAPLOOL.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 172\n\n\n 17. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHIV SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GOG, POST OFFICE KIRIGHAT, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL WAKNA U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHUMEHAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 18. SHASHI KANT SON OF RAM PARTAP RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE GHARSI BRAHMNA, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL RAMPUR U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANDI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 19. KAMAL NAYAN SON OF SHRI AMAR CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE GHARSI BHARMNA, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHAMKARI U/C\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GOYALA.\n\n 20. PUSHPENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI INDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAMROG, POST OFFICE GALANAG,\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n GAURA.\n\n 21. BALBIR RANA SON OF JAGDISH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n TATAHAR, POST OFFICE NAPOHI, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GAURA.\n\n\n\n\n 22. DINESH THAKUR SON OF JOGINDER THAKUR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DHARON-KI-DHAR, POST OFFICE KOTLA\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SHAMROR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 23. SANJAY DUTT SON OF THANDI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GALANAG, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KHANOG U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS) SOLAN.\n\n 24. SARITA DEVI WIFE OF BHUPESH SHARMA RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHARYAR, POST OFFICE KAITHLIGHAT, TEHSIL\n KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PPAS.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 173\n\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BASHA U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BISHA.\n\n 25. NEELAM WIFE OF SHRI MANOJ KUMAR RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BALASA, POST OFFICE ANANDPUR, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n .\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BASHA, U/C\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BISHA.\n\n 26. KUMARI TARUNA WIFE OF SHRI JITENDER SHARMA\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARYA, POST OFFICE BAG PASHOG,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL LAGHACH U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DEOTHI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 27. SHAKUNTALA DEVI WIFE OF PURAN CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF CHEWA, POST OFFICE KUMARHATTI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n CHEWA.\n\n\n 28. SANDEEP KUAMR SON OF GURDYAL SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GALANAG, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL GALANAG U/C\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS) SOLAN.\n\n 29. MAN MOHAN PATHAK SON OF GAJENDER KUMAR\n RESIDENT OF VILALGE SANAN, POST OFFICE DHUMEHAR,\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL GALANAG U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL (BOYS) SOLAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 30. RAJESH SHARMA SON OF SHRI INDER DUTT SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SER-BANERA, POST OFFICE KOFTA,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL KHANOG U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL (BOYS) SOLAN.\n\n 31. AJAY KUMAR SON OF LAKSHMI NAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DEHRA, POST OFFICE DUBLOO, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 174\n\n\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MAHI U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KANDAGHAT.\n\n 32. ADARSH KUMAR SON OF MAHESH KUMAR RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SUKHI JOHRI, POST OFFICE DHARAMPUR, TEHSIL\n KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL DHARAMPUR.\n\n 33. NARENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI BAL KRISHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANEHAR POST OFFICE KUFTU,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KUFTU.\n\n 34. VINAY KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SHRI SOM DUTT\n\n\n\n\n\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TRIMALI, POST OFFICE\n KOTLA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n KANAH U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n JAUNAJI.\n\n\n 35. KAPIL BHARTI SON OF JAI DUTT SHARMA, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TRIMALI, POST OFFICE KOTLA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SAWAGAON U/C\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GAURA.\n\n 36. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF KRISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHUDHAM(KAROUR) POST OFFICE KARGANOO,\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL SAWAGAON, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GAURA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 37. CHANDER DUTT SON OF JEET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n LAKKAR BAZAAR, SOLAN, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KAROG U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GAURA.\n\n 38. VISHAL VIKRAM SON OF NARESH VIKRAM, RESIDENT OF\n AYUSH NIWAS, MADHUBAN COLONY, TANK ROAD, SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTHON SOLAN.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 175\n\n\n\n 39. SHEELA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BHAWANIPUR, POST OFFICE BADHLAG, TEHSIL\n KANDAGHAT, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MANJHOL.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 40. MEERA THAKUR WIFE OF SHRI TIKKAM THAKUR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATNOR, POST OFFICE URTOO,\n TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRSL) SOLAN.\n\n 41. CHINTAMANI SON OF SHRI SURAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SANAN, POST OFFICE DOMEHAR, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BHUMTI.\n\n 42. KALICHARAN SON OF PREM KRISHAN SHARMA,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANJAN, POST OFFICE MANGOO,\n TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL TAKOFI BANJAN.\n\n 43. KHEM RAJ SON OF TIKKA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n PIOTHA, POST OFFICE SHALAGHAT, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n SHASTRI AT KARARAGHAT.\n\n\n\n\n 44. KAMLESH SON OF KRISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHILL-BADOG, POST OFFICE SEWRA-CHANDI,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT SHORA KANETA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 45. BHUVNESHWAR SON OF KRISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS)\n KUNIHAR.\n\n 46. CHUNI LAL SON OF PARAS RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n CHAMROL WALA, POST OFFICE CHAKHAR, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GMS. PARNOO.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 176\n\n\n\n 47. LATA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI DHARMENDER GAUTAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR, POST OFFICE BHUMTI,\n TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL JAMROTI\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 48. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF RATTAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DASERAN, POST OFFICE BHARARIGHAT, TEHSIL\n ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MANGROOR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 49. JAI PAL SON OF SHRI RAM LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n SAMLOH, POST OFFICE NAVGAON, TESIL ARKI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DARLAGHAT.\n\n\n r to\n 50. SUMEET CHAND SON OF DURGA DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DELAG, POST OFFICE NICHLI BHATER, TEHSIL\n SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MANGAL.\n\n 51. DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI DITTU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SERA, POST OFFICE PARNOO, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SERA.\n\n 52. CHAMAN LAL PATHAK SON OF SHANKAR LAL PATHAK,\n VILLAGE GHENA, POST OFFICE SAHROL, TEHSIL ARKI,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n GHARIYACH.\n\n 53. LEKH RAM SON OF DILA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n CHANDRAINI POST OFFICE TAKSALI, TEHSIL KASAULI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n MASULKHANA PATTA.\n\n 54. MEHAR SINGH SON OF RAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BIDHI MARERI, POST OFFICE BADHONIGHAT,\n TEHSIL PATTA, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTBEJA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 177\n\n\n\n 55. RAJENDER KUMAR SONOF KUNDAN LAL RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE THANDU, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTBEJA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 56. DURGA DUTT SON OF HARI DUTT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n PHAGGAR, POST OFFICE TAKSALI, TEHSIL KASAULI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GUNAI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 57. VIKAS CHANDEL SON OF PREM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TAROL, POST OFFICE GAIGHAT, TEHSIL KASAULI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GATORA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 58. CHAMAN LAL SON OF HIRA LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n PADHOG, POST OFFICE PRATHA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL NERIKALAN.\n\n 59. THAKUR DASS SON OF PARAS RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE EKHRO, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GHARER.\n\n\n 60. MADAN LAL SON OF RAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n LOHARI, POST OFFICE SOUR, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAUR.\n\n\n\n\n 61. RAJENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI JENDU RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE KOTLI, POST OFFICE NAND, TEHSIL\n RAMSHEHAR, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL LUNAS.\n\n 62. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAM DAYAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PIPLTA, POST OFFICE BANDHONIGHAT, TEHSIL\n BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n TUJHAR.\n\n 63. DESH RAJ SON OF DHANI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE JAINAGAR, TEHSIL RAMSHEHAR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 178\n\n\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SOON.\n\n 64. SUNIL BHARDWAJ SON OF SHRI GORKH RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JAINAGAR, TEHSIL\n NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL DHANG.\n\n 65. MUKESH KUMAR SON OF DALEL SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PANDAL, POST OFFICE BADHOKHARI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n RAMSHEHAR, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n BADHOKHARI.\n\n 66. DEVKI NAND SON OF BISHAN DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE MUNDER, POST OFFICE JUBBER, TEHSIL KASAULI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n CHAMIAN.\n\n 67. NARESH CHAND SON OF SHRI KISHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SAI, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DHARAMPUR.\n\n\n 68. SARWAN KUMAR SON OF RAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SAI, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n GOLYANA PANER.\n\n\n\n\n\n 69. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF MELA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MAJRU, POST OFFICE LODHIMAJRA, TEHSIL BADDI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DHARAMPUR.\n\n 70. RAM KARAN SON OF HARI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE BHATOLI KALAN, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KAUNDI.\n\n 71. ANITA DEVI WIFE OF SRI PARMINDER SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE THANTHEWAL, POST OFFICE RAJPURA, TEHSIL\n NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 179\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL CHAMALMAJRA.\n\n 72. RAMESH KUMAR SON OF RAM KARAN, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SOURI, POST OFFICE SAI, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n .\n SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n LODHI MAJRA.\n\n 73. RASHPAL KUMARI WIFE OF SANDEEP KUMAR RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BAROTIWALA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n SURAJPUR.\n\n 74. AMAR LAL SON OF DASU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n BEH KOLIYAN, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GHARER.\n\n 75. MOHINDER SINGH SON OF MEGH SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAHA, POST OFFICE GALOT, TEHSIL NALAGARH,\n\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GMS. JANAUN.\n\n 76. MANJEET DEVI WIFE OF SHRI NARENDER KUMAR,\n\n\n RESIDENT OF KILIYAN, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KAROL.\n\n\n\n\n 77. NEELAM KUMARI DAUGHTER OF AJMER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NERALI BRAHMNA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n TAMBOL, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL SAI CHAROG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 78. RAMAN DEVI WIFE OF DHARMINDER SINGH RANA,\n RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 2, NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS),\n NALAGARH.\n\n 79. MONIKA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI GURU CHARAN, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE PALLI, POST OFFICE PANJEHRA, TEHSIL\n NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 180\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL NAND.\n\n 80. LAVLEEN KUMARI WIFE OF AMAR CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SERI BRAHMNA, POST OFFICE PANJEHRA, TEHSIL\n NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL GURDASSPURA U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJEHRA.\n\n 81. HEM RAJ SHARMA SON OF SHRI MANSA RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE PYOTHA, POST OFFICE SHALAGHAT, TEHSIL\n ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL HANUMAN\n BADOG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 82. ARUN SHARMA SON OF SHRI DESH RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAKRA, POST OFFICE DARLAGHAT, TEHSIL ARKI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL ROURI.\n\n 83. SATINDER KUMAR SON OF DHARAM CHAND VASHISHT,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GHARSI BRAHMAN,\n POST OFFICE CHANDI, TEHSIL CHANDI, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHAYALA.\n\n\n\n 84. KAMAL KUMAR S/O SH. RAMJI DASS, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAND.\n .. PETITIONERS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n AND\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, SOLAN,\n DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n .. RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 181\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 13. CWP NO. 1192 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n .\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. ARVIND SEHGAL S/O KAMAL PRAKASH SEHGAL, AGED 44,\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VPO SHAMSHI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL\n BAROGI.\n\n 2. YOG RAJ S/O SH. HOSHIYARA RAM AGED 40 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE LADHAN, P.O. KOHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL KAINTHLY, U/C GSSS\n MASROOND.\n\n 3. HANIF BEG S/O SH. NAZER BEG, AGE 38 YEARS,\n\n OCCUPTION TGT NON-MEDICAL R/O VILLAGE KHARYOGA P.0.\n\n JHAJJA KOTHI TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL, DEHGRAM\n U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL JHAJJA KOTHI.\n\n 4. KULDEEP SINGH S/O KARAM CHAND AGE 42 YEARS,\n\n\n OCCUPATION TGT NON-MEDICAL R/O VILLAGE LAGHA, P.O.\n THINEI-KOTHI, TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL BIHALI U/C\n\n\n\n\n GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL SEI-KOTHI.\n\n 5. SHANNU CHAUHAN D/O SHRI KALAM SINGH CHAUHAN AGE\n\n\n\n\n\n 40 YEARS TGT (MED) R/O VILLAGE THANA P.O. TIKKAR\n TEHSIL ROHRU DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED\n AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOLDHALI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 6. KULDEEP SINGH S/O SH.DHARMU AGE 40 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE KHADAR P.O.\n KHAROTHI, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS LOHANI U/C GOVT. SR. SEC\n SCHOOLSALOONI.\n\n 7. MEHAR SINGH S/O AMAR SINGH AGE 38 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE SURELLA P.O.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 182\n\n\n KHAROTHI, TEHSIL SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL KHADAR.\n\n 8. MUKESH KUMAR S/O SH.BHARTHU AGED 40 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS) R/O VPO KIHAR TEHSIL SALOONI\n DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS\n\n\n\n\n .\n CHAKHARI U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOLDIUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 9. DINESH SINGH S/O SH TULA RAM AGED 39 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS) R/O VILLAGE SAROG, P.0. KIHAR\n TEHSIL SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GMS KILOD-1 U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOLKIHAR.\n\n 10. RANJIT SINGH S/O SH.RAJINDER SINGH AGED 38 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n KIHAR TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOLKIHAR.\n\n 11. KAMLA DEVI W/O SH. UTTAM CHAND AGED 43 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VPO KIHAR TEHSIL SALOONI\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR.\n SEC SCHOOL BHANDAL.\n\n 12. DHARAM CHAND S/O SH TULA RAM AGED 40 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VILLAGE SAROG 2.0.\n KIHAR TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AT GMS MOOLKIHAR U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL\n KIHAR.\n\n 13. KAMLESH KUMAR S/O SH PREM SINGH AGED 40,\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED) R/O VILLAGE AIRWAN, P.O.\n SUNDLA, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOLSANGHNI.\n\n 14. SANJAY DOGRA S/O SH HARI RAM AGED 38 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VPO SUNDLA, TEHSIL\n SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL DIUR.\n\n 15. MEENA DOGRA W/O SH. VIKRAM SINGH AGED 40 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VPO BANIKHET TEHSIL\n DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT CHAMBA B.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL GRANGER.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 183\n\n\n 16. NAR SINGH S/O SH. BHAGMAL AGED 39 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE LADER P.O. LEHRA,\n TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL LAHRA.\n\n 17. RAJNEESH KUMAR S/O SH. LAXMAN SINGH AGED 41\n\n\n\n\n .\n YEARS OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VILLAGE SANDHI,\n\n\n\n\n\n P.O. LIGGA, TEHSIL SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA,H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS LOHANI U/C GOVT. SR. SEC\n SCHOOL SALOONI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 18. RAKESH KUMAR S/O SH. PRAHLAD AGED 41 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS) R/O VILLAGE SALAN P.O. MAURA,\n TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GMS THALOGA U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL\n TELKA.\n\n\n r to\n 19. SURJIT SINGH S/O SH HANS RAJ AGED 38 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n KIHAR, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL KIHAR.\n H.P.\n\n 20. DEVINDER SINGH S/O SH BEER SINGH, AGED 38,\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VILLAGE ROPRI, P.0.\n BHUTHI, DISTRICT KULLU, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS\n BEASAR U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL RAISON.\n\n\n\n 21. KARAM CHAND S/O SH AMAR CHAND, AGED 44,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS) R/O VILLAGE JESHTHA P.O.\n THELLA, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GHS\n\n\n\n\n JESHTHA U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL GARSA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 22. PRAKASH CHAND S/O BHIMI RAM, AGED 38, OCCUPATION\n TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE KOISHU DHAR, P.O. THELLA,\n TEHSIL BHUNTAR, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEA SCHOOL THELLA.\n\n 23. TEK CHAND S/O SH ROOM CHAND, AGED 40, OCCUPATION\n TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE TALARI P.O. DHARA, DISTRICT\n KULLU H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL D.K\n CHONG.\n 24. YASHPAL RANA, S/O SH. ANUP RAM RANA, AGED 38\n YEARS, OCCUPATION TGT (MED), R/O VILLAGE BEUGI, P.O.\n BARRI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT.\n MIDDLE SCHOOL SHILLIHAR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 184\n\n\n\n 25. SACHIN DEV S/O SH. SOM DEV, AGED 41, OCCUPATION\n TGT (TGT ARTS), R/O VILLAGE CHEREDA, P.O. MOHAL\n DISTRICT KULLU, B.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC\n SCHOOL DIYAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 26. RAMESH CHAND S/O SH. BHIMI RAM, AGED 41,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VILLAGE BATEHAR, P.O.\n ARCHHANDI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL HALLAN-1.\n\n\n\n\n\n 27. SAKENDER RAJ S/O SH. BHAG CHAND, AGED 41,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE CHHAKI, P.O.\n NAGGAR DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL RAMSU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 28. ASHA THAKUR D/O SH SHIV SINGH, AGED 38,\n OCCUPATIONTGT (MEDICAL), R/O VILLAGE KOT, P.O. TEHRA,\n SUB TEHSIL TEHRA, DISTRICT MANDI, H. P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL MANIKARAN.\n\n 29. FIGAL CHAND S/O SHIV CHAND, AGED 45, OCCUPATION\n\n TGT (MEDICAL), R/O VILLAGE BHUMTEER P.O. BHARAI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH\n SCHOOL BHUMTEER.\n\n\n 30.KAMAL KANT S/O SH. HIRALAL, AGED 41 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VILLAGE VPO DUGHILAG,\n DISTRICT KULLU, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS MASHNA\n U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL SHALANG.\n\n\n\n\n 31. MANOHAR LAL S/O SH. JINDU RAM, AGED 45,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE SHANGCHAR, P.O\n PANGAN, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS\n LEEGAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 32. BHUMI DEV S/O SH. SANGAT RAM AGED 42, OCCUPATION\n TGT ARTS, R/O VILLAGE SHALEEN, P.O. KALATH, DISTRICT\n KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS SHALEEN.\n\n 33. PAWAN KUMAR S/O CHUHRU RAM AGED 41 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT ARTS, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n DHUGILAG, DISTRICT KULLU, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GMS MASHNA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 185\n\n\n 34. ASHA SHARMA D/O PENA RAM AGED 48 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT ARTS, R/O VILLAGE PATHARA, P.O.\n BAZAHRA, SUB TEHSIL SAING DISTRICT KULLU H. P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL BHUMTEOR.\n\n 35. NIRMAL CHAND THAKUR S/O PURAN CHAND THAKUR,\n\n\n\n\n .\n AGED 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION TGT MEDICAL, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n BHALYANI, DISTRICT KULLU, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL RAILA.\n\n 36. NAVNEET SHARMA, S/O MOHINDER KUMAR SHARMA,\n\n\n\n\n\n AGED 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VILLAGE\n SUNGAL, P.O. BAROUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA\n H.P.PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL\n KALOTA,CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 37. TABASSUM D/O SANNA ULLA KHAN, AGED 45,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE SHILLA, P.O.\n SHILLAGHRAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED\n AT GOVT SR. SEC. SCHOOL SHILLAGHRAT, CHAMBA.\n\n 38. MONIKA SHARMA D/O SATYA PAL, AGED 42 YEARS,\n\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O MOHALLA KSAKARA, P.0.\n CHAMBA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT G.M.G.S.S. SCHOOL CHAMBA.\n\n\n 39. JYOTISHNA VASISHTA, D/O TEJ RAM VASHISHT AGED 41\n YEARS, OCCUPATION TGT (MED), R/O MOHALLA BANGOTU,\n P.O. CHAMBA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT G.M.G.S.S.S. CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n 40. BHAVNESH PHADIYA, S/O PIYAR SINGH, OCCUPATION TGT\n\n\n\n\n\n (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE BIHALI P.O. SUNDLA, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT.\n MIDDLE SCHOOL BIHALI, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 41. SATISH KUMAR S/O SATYA PRASHAD, OCCUPATION TGT\n (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE DHANAWAL, P.O. TIKROO, TEHSIL\n SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL SIULA, CHAMBA.\n\n 42. VINAY KUMAR, S/O SH. PRITO RAM AGE 38 YEARS,,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE RAITAN, P.O. SINYUR,\n TEHSIL BHARMOUR, CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL SINYUR, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 186\n\n\n\n 43. VIKRAM CHAND, S/O SH KARAM CHAND, AGED 38 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE SATNALA, P.O.\n ULLNASA, TEHSIL BHARMAUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL ULLNASA,\n CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 44. BALAK RAM, S/O SH. RATTAN CHAND AGE 41 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n GHARER, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL BHARMOUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 45. SHIV KUMAR, S/O RATTAN CHAND AGED 41, OCCUPATION\n TGT (MED) VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GAROLA, TEHSIL\n BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SN. SEC. SCHOOL DURGETHI, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 46. KARNAIL SINGH, S/O SH. MITHU RAM, AGED 41 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n SANCHUIN, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT SR. SEC. SCHOOL BHARMOUR,\n CHAMBA.\n\n 47. KAMLESH KUMAR, S/O SH. PARAS RAM, AGED 37 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE ASANDO, POST\n OFFICE KHANI, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P.\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS KHANI, CHAMBA.\n\n 48. LALITA DEVI, W/O SH. JITENDER KUMAR, AGE 39 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE LUNA, P.O. AURA\n\n\n\n\n PHATI, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS LAHAL U/C GSSS KHANI,\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA.\n\n 49. KULBIR SINGH, S/O MUNSHI RAM, AGED 45 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n GREEMA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GHS GREEMA U/C GSSS KHANI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA.\n\n 50. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O JAGAT RAM, AGE 41 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VILLAGE PUKHRI, P.O.\n PUKHRI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT G.M. S. TIKRI, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 187\n\n\n 51. HEM RAJ S/O CHANALU, AGED 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION\n TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE DOBHI P.O. JHULARA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSED AT GMS\n KHAWAH, CHAMBA.\n\n 52. TILAK RAJ S/O GHAPIYA RAM, AGED 40 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n .\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE TIKRI, P.O. PUKHERI,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n G.S.S.S. SANDHI, CHAMBA.\n\n 53. RAJNI BALA D/O BHAGAT RAM, AGED 44 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n PUKHRI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GMS MAMALGALA U/C MASROOND, CHAMBA.\n\n 54. AARTI MAHAJAN, W/O VIVEK MAHAJAN, AGED 39 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n MASROOND, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GSSS MASROOND, CHAMBA.\n\n 55. BABITA D/O RAMESH CHAND, AGED 39 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION TGT (NON-MED), R/O VILLAGE LARGO, P.O.\n\n CHANDI LARGO, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS BHARDAR U/C GSSS CHANDI,\n CHAMBA.\n\n\n 56. SURESH KUMAR, S/O NIHALU, AGED 41, OCCUPATION TGT\n ARTS, R/O VILLAGE KHADLUIEN, P.O. MASROOND, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS\n SAPROT U/C GSSS KOHAL, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n 57. KUMARI RITA, W/O RAKESH KUMAR, AGE 41 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION TGT (ARTS), R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n SALWAN, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS SANGHANI, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n\n ...PETITIONERS\n (BY SH. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA-2, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 188\n\n\n\n 3. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H.P.\n ...RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n\n\n\n\n .\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n\n\n\n\n 14. CWP NO. 1196 OF 2021\n\n 1. TILAK RAJ ANGARIA, S/O SH AMAR PAUL ANGARIA, AGED\n\n\n\n\n\n 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION D.P.E, R/O VILLAGE LOWER SIHOTU,\n P.O. ATIYALADAI, TOHAIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL\n KIARWAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. RAKESH KUMAR S/0 PAWAN KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION DPE, R/O VILLAGE GHARI P.O. RAJNAGAR,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR.\n SEC. SCHOOL KUTHER.\n r ...PETITIONERS\n\n (BY SH. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA-2, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n 3. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H. P.\n\n\n\n\n\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n\n\n\n\n 15. CWP NO. 1265 OF 2021\n\n BETWEEN :\n\n 1. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI PYAR CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE TIGAILTHA, POST OFFICE SUNARA, TEHSIL\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL ANANEHAR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 189\n\n\n\n 2. RAJINDER SINGH SON OF DHARAM CHAND, ESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHANHAIL, POST OFFICE SAMRA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL ANANEHAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 3. BASI RAM SON OF KARAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE PLAIPDI, POST OFFICE KILOD, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LYLH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. GUPA SINGH SON OF SHRI MANKH RAM, RESIDENT FO\n VILLAGE DHARATO, POST OFFICE SAMRA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL SAMRA.\n\n 5. TILAK RAJ SON OF RAVAN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n TIGAILTHA, POST OFFICE SUNARA, TEHSIL CHAMBA,\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL GROUNDI U/C GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BATOT.\n\n 6. VIJAY KAPOOR SON OF ROOP SING, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHARARI, TEHSIL BHARMOUR,\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SANH.\n\n 7. HEM LATA DAUGHTER OF GUR DEVI RESIDENTOF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE CHOORI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL DRAMAN U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SAACH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 8. RAJENDER SINGH SON OF JARAM SINGH, RESIENT OF\n VILLAGE SARODI, POST OFFICE SAACH, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DRAMAN\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAACH.\n\n 9. NAVAL KUMAR SON OF YAGYA DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHAMBI, POST OFFICE JADERA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 190\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL JADERA.\n\n 10. SANDESH KUMARI WIFE OF TRILOK NATH, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO.4, VILLAGE CHALERA, POST OFFICE BHARARI,\n TEHSIL BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GHATASNI.\n\n 11. RAM PRASAD SONOF SOBHAKER SHARMA, RESIDENT OF\n WARD NO. 1, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KAKIRA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL KAKIRA (G)\n\n 12. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF HARNAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n HOUSE NO. 60, R/ BAZAR BAKLOH CANTT., TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n BHARARI.\n\n 13. RAKESH KUMAR SON FO PHANDI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n WARD NO.4, VILLAGE KAMLARI, POST OFFICE BAKLOH,\n TEHSIL BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL SAKRERA, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n SCHOOL DALHOUSIE.\n\n 14. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI UTTAM CHAND SHARMA,\n ESIDENT OF WARD NO. 2, POST OFFICE RAIPUR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL PHAGOT U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL RAIPUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 15. KAMAL PRAKASH SON OF KISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHARIYAN, POST OFFICE KUPARA, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JATKARI,\n U/C GMSSS BHARIAN.\n\n 16. DALEEP KUMAR SON OF DHARO RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHALOTHA, POST OFFICE KHATAN TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 191\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JANJLA\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KARIAN.\n\n 17. SANJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI TAK CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KIANI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT\n\n\n\n\n .\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BHANDAR, U/C GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAJNAGAR.\n\n 18. MUKESH KUMAR SON OF KAILASH CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHANDAR, POST OFFICE RAJNAGAR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BHANDAR U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAJNAGAR.\n\n 19. NIRMALA DEVI WIFE OF CHAMAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KUTHER, POST OFFICE PALWIN, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KIANI.\n\n 20. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF NISAN DASS RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RAJNAGAR, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL RAJNAGAR.\n\n\n\n 21. VIPAN KUAMR SON OF CHHANCHCHO RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JANGHI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL TRALLA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 22. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF JAMITO RESIDENT OF VILLAEG\n HUNJAD, POST OFFICE DRADHA, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL NUGHUIN.\n\n 23. MEENAKSHI DEVI WIFE OF PAWAN KUMAR RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KIHAL, POST OFFICE SAACH, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAACH.\n\n 24. NARENDER KUMAR SON OF DHARAM CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BEHRA, POST OFFICE KOTI DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 192\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANDI.\n\n 25. ANUP KUMAR SON OF DHARAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHATOLI, POST OFFICE LAROG, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PRAHNAVI\n\n\n\n\n\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANDI.\n\n 26. AJAY KUMAR SON OF PARTAP CHAND, ESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KUTHAR, POST OFFICE KANDLA, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MOUWA.\n\n 27. PARTAP SINGH SON OF AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHANGOLI, POST OFFICE MANJEER, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SURANGANI\n\n 28. POONAM WIFE OF PARTAP SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n BHANGOLI, POST OFFICE MANJEER, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BHANDAR.\n\n 29. KAVITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF GHINDER SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RAJPURA, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DHROG,\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS)\n CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n 30. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF KARAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE OBERI, POST OFFICE SULTANPUR, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL KOLKA.\n\n 31. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF CHAND RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PANJIYARA, POST OFFICE KHAJJIAR, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KHAJJIAR.\n\n 32. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF HOSHIARA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHAKA POST OFFICE KOTI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 193\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SHIND, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KALHEL.\n\n 33. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHAKTI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DEGHA, POST OFFICE SIRKUND, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANED.\n\n 34. PARDEEP KUMAR SNO OF CHAMAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TATRU, POST OFFICE KOTI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PRAHNAVI.\n\n 35. VIRENDER KUMAR SON OF HIMMAT SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE SHAKTI DEHRA, POST OFFICE SIRKUND, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SIRKUND. r\n 36. NEELAM KUMARI DAUGHTER OF KARAM CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KARIAN, DISTRICT\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JATKARI.\n\n 37. SAROJ KUMARI WIFE OF RAJESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n MOHALLA RAMGARH JANSALI, POST OFFICE, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL LUDRERA.\n\n\n\n\n 38. POOJA KUMARI WIFE OF VIVEK THAKUR RESIDENT OF\n MOHALLA SULTANPUR, POST OFFICE SULTANPUR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MANKOT U/C GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL KADED.\n\n\n\n\n\n 39. VIVEK KUMAR SON OF PREM LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE SULTANPUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MANKOT U/C GOVERNMENT\n HIGH SCHOOL KADED.\n\n 40. HEM RAJ SON OF DHARAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG BHARIAN, POST OFFICE KUPRARA, TEHSIL CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 194\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GMS.\n MANKOT, U/C GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KADED.\n\n 41. RAKESH KUMAR SONM OF YADAV SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NARHELU, POST OFFICE RAIPUR, TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n DHADHU.\n\n 42. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF MOTI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GAGAHAR, POST OFFICE RAIPUR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL BIHALI.\n\n 43. VED VIYAS SONO OF UTTAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHOWARI, WARD NO. 6, TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL BIHALI U/C GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DHADU.\n\n 44. ROHIT KUMAR SON OF DES RAJ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n CHOWARI, WARD NO. 5 POST OFFICE CHOWARI, TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DADRIARA.\n\n\n\n 45. VINOD KUMAR SON OF AMAR CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MATHOLU, POST OFFICE KUDDI, TEHSIL\n BHATTIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n MAOTHOLU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 46. AMAN SINGH SON OF JEEWAN SINGH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GAHAR, TEHSIL BHATTIYAT,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SADAL,\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAIPUR.\n\n 47. HARISH KUMAR SON OF JANAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE HAIL, POST OFFICE DEVI KOTHI, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL TATROG\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TISSA,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 195\n\n\n\n 48. VIMAL KUMAR SON OF HIMAT SINGH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHANELU POST OFFICE GANED, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n CHIRWARI U/ GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n .\n TISSA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 49. NARAYAN SINGH SON OF UMEDA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHIYAS POST OFFICE TARELLA, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GSSS, BAIRAGARH.\n\n 50. RAMESH KUMAR SON OF MAIYA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n CHALUNJ, POST OFFICE GULEI, TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GULEI.\n\n 51. NARAIN SINGH SON OF RISALU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MANDOON, POST OFFICE BIOUNDERI, TEHSIL\n CHURAH,\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BOUNDERI.\n\n 52. BAL DEV SON OF DIYAL CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n GHARI, POST OFFICE BOUNDERI, TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT\n\n\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM\n AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JANWAS.\n\n 53. CHATTER SINGH SON OF LAL CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE GHARI, POST OFFICE BOUNDERI, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS OT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JANWAS.\n\n 54. SANTOSH KUMARI DAUGHTER OF DHIRAJ RAM,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUNDARDA, POST OFFICE KHANI,\n TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PARCHORE.\n\n 55. NARESH KUMAR SON OF VISHESHER NATH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KHARNDAR, POST OFFICE BATHRI, TEHSIL\n DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 196\n\n\n SCHOOL DEVIDEHRA U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BATHRI.\n\n 56. INDERJEET SON OF CHATRO RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHAKRA POST OFFICE SHERPUR, TEHSIL\n DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n BHARURI, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BATHRI.\n 57. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF KEHRIA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DOLL, POST OFFICE BAGGI, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SIMNI.\n\n 58. KULDEEP SINGH SON OF PIAR SINGH RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILALGE SINDI, POST OFFICE THAKRI MATTI, TEHSIL\n SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL BAGGI U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL BAGGI.\n\n 59. HUKAM SINGH SON OF HIMIA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BIRWARI, POST OFFICE DIUR, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BIRWARI\n\n\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DIUR.\n\n 60. MUKESH KUMAR SON OF TEJ RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MANJEER, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BIRWARI,\n\n\n\n\n\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DIUR.\n\n 61. VIRENDER KUMAR SON OF AMKU, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE TUHIN, POST OFFICE THAKRIMATTI, TEHSIL\n SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n BIRWARI U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n DIUR.\n 62. HEM RAJ SON OF SHRI SUKHDEV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n KUMHARUIN, POST OFFICE UTEEP TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOLUTEEP U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMHARKA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 197\n\n\n\n 63. KAMLESH KUMAR SON OF GHINJLO RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GHAN, POST OFFICE UTEEP, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KAKIAN, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMHARKA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 64. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TAKWAS, POST OFFICE KILLAR, TEHSIL PANGI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL TUNDRU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 65. CHHIRING TUNDAV SON OF TASHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE HITTRWN, POST OFFICE UDEEN, TEHSIL PANGI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL UDEEN\n\n\n\n\n\n (PANGI).\n\n 66. PREM SINGH SON OF DUNI CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TAKWAS, POST OFFICE KILLAR, TEHSIL PANGI,\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL TAKWAS.\n\n 67. ASHWANI KUMAR SON OF KARAM LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHARK, POST OFFICE SECHU, TEHSIL PANGI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHASK.\n\n 68. JYOTI DAUGHTER OF ASHWANI, RESIDENT OF RAINA\n NIWAS, MOHALLA JANSALI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL, SARU U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL, UDAIPUR, CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n 69. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SH. MANGAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE GERA, POST OFFICE GOLI, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL GRANGAR,\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, BATHRI.\n\n 70. NARENDER KUMAR SON OF SH. KARAM CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BHANOTA, POST OFFICE CHANED, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL GRANGAR U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, BATHRI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 198\n\n\n\n 71. SURINDER KUMAR SON OF SH. TILAK RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MATYANA, POST OFFICE BATHRI, TEHSIL\n DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, BATHRI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 72. PREM SINGH SON OF SH. CHAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE BASSA, POST OFFICE SUBLI, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KAIL U/C MAIL.\n .. PETITIONERS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n\n\n\n\n\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, CHAMBA,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERA WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n\n\n\n 16. CWP NO. 1276 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN :\n\n 1. RAVI KUMAR SON OF SHRI PRITHI CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SURAH, POST OFFICE LAGDEVI, TEHSIL TAUNI DEVI,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL POHANJ.\n\n 2. MANJEET KUMAR SON OF SHRI CHUNNI LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHABUTRA, TEHSIL\n SUJANPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n BANAL.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 199\n\n\n\n 3. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI BACHITTER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JANGAL POST OFFICE JANGAL BERI,\n TEHSIL SUJANPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL BERI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 4. AJAY KUMAR SON OF MEHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BAJROL, TEHSIL SUJANPUR,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL BAJROL.\n\n 5. AMIT SHARMA SON OF KISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHAKROON, POST OFFICE KITPAL, TEHSIIL\n NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SERA.\n\n 6. HOSHIAR SINGH SON OF KEHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE GHANDIANA, POST OFFICE CHORU, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BARA.\n\n 7. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI OM PARKASH SHARMA\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAKROON, POST OFFICE KITPAL,\n TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n BHAVRAN.\n\n\n\n\n 8. PANKAJ SHARMA SONOF SHRI KANTHU RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE BHATI, POST OFFICE MONHI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SWAHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 9. RAKESH SINGH SON OF BABU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MANJHELI, POST OFFICE KANGOO, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MANJHELI.\n\n 10. VIMAL KUMAR SON OF JARAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JAMNOTI, POST OFFICE BOONI, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 200\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JANI\n JAGIAN.\n\n 11. AJAY KUMAR SON OF SHAKTI CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHANKAR, POST OFFICE JOL SAPPAR, TEHSIL\n NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL JOL.\n\n 12. ASHWANI KUMAR SON OF BABU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BADWAL, POST OFFICE BOONI, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT. GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n BADEHRA.\n\n 13. JITENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI JAI KISHAN, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HATHOL, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL HATHOL.\n\n 14. RIMPLE RANI WIFE OF RAMESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE MALAG, POST OFFICE KANGOO, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n BELA.\n\n\n\n 15. DINESH KUMAR SON OF JAI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHADRUN, POST OFFICE DHANETA, TEHSIL\n NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GGHS DHANETA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 16. BASEER MOHAMMED SON OF NIAZ DEEN, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BANN, POST OFFICE RANGAS, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BANN.\n\n 17. ANKUSH SHARMA SON OF SHRI ONKAR CHAND, ESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DHAKROON, POST OFFICE KITPAL, TEHSIL\n NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n MANN TARETI.\n\n 18. KRISHAN CHAND SON OF JEET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAHI DI BAHAL, POST OFFICE PANYALI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 201\n\n\n NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL KARDOH.\n\n 19. AJAY KUMAR SONO OF OM PRAKASH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHAKROON, POST OFFICE KITPAL, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n BHALOON.\n\n 20. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF RAM KISHAN, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE CHOBU, POST OFFICE BOONI, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BOONI.\n\n 21. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI GANGA RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GHALOON, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n GHALOON.\n\n 22. KEWAL KRISHAN SON OF RAMESH CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE TARKERI, POST OFFICE SUNDHIAL, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n BANN.\n\n\n 23. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI HABI SINGH, ESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BATRAN, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL BHUPAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 24. ARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL SON OF PRITAM CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARDHIYAL, POST OFFICE PUTRIAL,\n TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL RAIL.\n\n 25. ASHWANI KUMAR SON OF OM PRAKASH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BATAHLI, POST OFFICE BARA TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BATAHLI.\n\n 26. BIRENDER KUMAR SHARMA SONOF SHRI BIDHI CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROPA, POST OFFICE KHIAH, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 202\n\n\n AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KHIAH.\n\n 27. SWAROOP KAMAL SON OF HANS RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GARNI, POST OFFICE KALOOR, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n MAWALGHAT.\n\n 28. RAJNEESH KAMAL SON OF HUKAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JANGLU, POST OFFICE JALARI, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MANN\n TARETI.\n\n 29. MOHINDER SINGH SON OF JAI KISHAN, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SAROL, POST OFFICE BASARAL, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BASARAL.\n\n 30. ASHWANI KUMAR SON OF PYAR CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE SAROHAL, POST OFFICE KAROT, TEHSIL SUJANPUR,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KANERAR.\n\n\n 31. BHUPESH SINGH SON OF PURAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BARDHIAR, POST OFFICE PUTRIAL, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JIWANI.\n\n\n\n\n 32. POONAM SHARMA WIFE OF VIJAY KUMAR RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BOONI, TEHSIL NADAUN,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JIWANI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 33. PROMILA RAJPUR WIFE OF RINKU KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SAMIRPUR, TEHSIL BAMSAN\n TAUNI DEVI, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n SAMIRPUR.\n .. PETITIONERS\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 203\n\n\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,\n HAMIRPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n ...RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n\n\n\n\n 17. CWP NO. 1498 OF 2021\n\n BETWEEN: r\n 1. NIRMAL KUMAR SON OF SHRI ROOP SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n OF VILLAGE BANONA, POST OFFICE WASNI, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n GUDHASAR.\n\n\n 2. ANKUR KASHYAP SON OF SHRI KEWAL RAM, RESIDENT\n OF WARD NO. 7, ADARSH NAGAR, DHOBIGHAT ROAD, SOLAN,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET IN GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n KOTLA PANJOLA.\n\n\n\n\n 3. HUNAR SINGH SON OF SHRI DHARAM SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF JARAG KHARETI (191) SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET IN GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL KHARETI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. VINOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DHARON, POST OFFICE KUJJI, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KUJJI.\n\n 5. HEMA KUMARI WIFE OF VINOD KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHARADI, POST OFFICE SER TANDULA, TEHSIL\n SANGRAH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 204\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL KHARETI.\n\n 6. DEVENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI KISHAN SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARON, POST OFFICE KUJJI, TEHSIL\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM IN GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL SHEENAGHAT U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KUJJI.\n\n 7. CHATTAR SINGH SON OF SHRI TAPENDER SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DINGER POST OFFICE MANGARH,\n TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n SHARIA U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n WASNI.\n\n 8.\n\n\n VIRENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI SHYAM DUTT,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANER, POST OFFICE SARSOO,\n TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n BANONA.\n\n 9. PRIYA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF BRIJ MOHAN, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DOON DEVARIA, POST OFFICE BHURIA, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n DOON DEVARIYA.\n\n 10. AMIT KUMAR SON OF SHRI SURESH CHANDER,\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NALOG, POST OFFICE CHURWADHAR,\n TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL NEHAR BAG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 11. JITENDER PRAKASH SON OF SHRI DEVI DASS, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DHAMANDAR, POST OFFICE BHAROLI, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL DHAMANDAR.\n\n 12. RANDEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI GITA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHANAL POST OFFICE SHAYA CHABRON, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GMSSS RAJGARH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 205\n\n\n\n 13. RAM LAL SON OF DALIP SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n CHUNVI, POST OFFICE CHARNA, TEHSIL HARIPURDHAR,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL CHHOGTALI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 14. DEVINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI DAULAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KOT DANGAR, POST OFFICE THODNIWAD, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL NEHAR BAG.\n\n 15. SUMAN LATA DAUGHTER OF DAULAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHAROLI, TEHSIL RAJGARH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n DHAMANDAR.\n\n 16. SEEMA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SURAT SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE KUFAR MOND, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHAROLI.\n\n 17. SURJEET KUMAR SON OF SHRI SUNDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOL RIHATA, POST OFFICE HABBAN,\n\n\n TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL HABBAN.\n\n\n\n\n 18. SAPNA DAUGHTER OF SHRI YASHWANT SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DARO DEVARIYA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n DAHON, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL DOON DERIA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 19. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SURAT SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DHANG SER MANON, POST OFFICE SHAYA\n CHOBIN, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHAROLI.\n\n 20. SUDERSHNA DEVI WIFE OF VIRENDER KUMAR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANGANUN SANORA, POST OFFICE\n AND TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 206\n\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANDINGHAT.\n\n 21. JAGPAL SINGH SON OF SHRI KALYAN SINGH RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KUNANI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SHILLAI,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL DAYA.\n\n 22. VIKRAM SINGH SON OF SHRI SANYA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DEMANA, POST OFFICE GAWALI, TEHSIL SHILLAI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL PHOTA\n MANAL.\n\n 23. NETAR SINGH SON OF TOPI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n DUDOG, POST OFFICE BALI-KOTI, TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KUSERU, U/C KANDYARI.\n\n 24. JAI PRAKASH SON OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NAYA POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT\n\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NAYA U/C SHILLAI.\n\n 25. OM PRAKASH SON OF SHRI GUMAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n VILLAGE TAKE, POST OFFICE MILLA, TEHSIL SHILLAI,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MILLA.\n\n\n\n\n 26. BHAW SINGH SON OF SHRI DHARAM SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MILLA, TEHSIL SHILLAI,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BAMBRER,\n\n\n\n\n\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BAKRAS.\n\n 27. BANSI RAM SON OF SHRI MANI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MILLAH, TEHSIL SHILLAI,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DIGWA, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MILLA.\n\n 28. KUMARI SHYAMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI SAHIB SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKER, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 207\n\n\n SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DRABIL.\n\n 29. DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SALKU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n LOZAMANAL, POST OFFICE LOZAMANAL, TEHSIL SHILLAI,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BANDLI-DADAS.\n\n 30. DALIP SINGH SON OF SHRI JEET SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KHANDO, POST OFFICE KANDO BHATNOL, TEHSIL\n SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BANDLI-DADAS.\n\n\n\n\n\n 31. SUMAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI MANGU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAUHAT, POST OFFICE KASOL, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT\n GUNDAHAN, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BAKRAS.\n\n\n 32. DEVI RAM SON OF SHRI KALYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NAINIDHAR, TEHSIL SHILLAI,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n SCHOOL JHAKANDO.\n\n 33. BHAGAT SINGH SON OF SHRI JAIPAL SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE PASHMI, POST OFFICE GAWALI, TEHSIL SHILLAI,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL GORKHUWALA.\n\n 34. CHATTER SINGH SON OF SHRI SANT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KAUSANU, POST OFFICE BALI KOTI, TEHSIL SHILLAI,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SALWALA.\n\n 35. KHAZAN SINGH SON OF SHRI GUMAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE POTA, TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MATIAYANA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 208\n\n\n 36. SAVITA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI SURESH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n NOHRADHAR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 37. GUR DEVI WIFE OF RAKESH CHAUHAN, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHOKAR, TEHSL NOHRADHAR,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH.\n\n 38. AJAY KUMAR VERMA SON OF SHRI CHET RAM VERMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHARARI, POST OFFICE\n PUNNERDHAR, TEHSIL NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DEVNA THANG U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NOHRADHAR.\n\n 39. UMA DUTT SON OF RAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n CHOKAN, POST OFFICE PUNNERDHAR, TEHSIL NOHRADHAR,\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PUNNERDHAR.\n\n\n 40. VINOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI DAYA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHOKAN, POST OFFICE PUNNERDHAR, TEHSIL\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL BHARARI U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PUNNERDHAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 41. RAJINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI HARI CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BHARARI, POST OFFICE PUNNERDHAR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL BHANRA U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PUNNERDHAR.\n\n 42. VINTA KUMARI WIFE OF PAWAN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHAJOND, TEHSIL NOHRADHAR,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BANDAL, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NOHRADHAR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 209\n\n\n\n 43. NITYA NAND SON OF DILA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n SERALA, POST OFFICE TALI-BHUJAL, TEHSIL RAJGARH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DHARMPUR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 44. NEERAJ BALA WIFE OF SHRI RAKESH SURYA, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE CHANVI, POST OFFICE CHARNA, TEHSIL\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LUDHIANA.\n\n 45. MEERA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI INDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DRAVIL, POST OFFICE JARAG, TEHSIL DADAHU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS DM AT GMS. DHAL PALYARA.\n\n 46. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF DEVI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DAHAR POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SANGRAH,\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DHAL\n\n PALYARA.\n\n 47. AJAY KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SHRI SANT RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LANA POLAR, TEHSIL SANGRAH,\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LANA POLAR.\n\n\n\n\n 48. VINOD KUMAR SON OF RANDEEP SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SANGRAH, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SANGRAH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 49. JAGDISH RAM SON OF SHRI MILKA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHATTEN BHUJMAL, TEHSIL\n NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BHAJOND.\n\n 50. JALAM SINGH SON OF SHRI SAHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHATARI, POST OFFICE BHALOO, TEHSIL KUPVI,\n DISTRICT CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 210\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BHAWAI.\n\n 51. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI ATMA RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BEYONG TATA (168) DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n\n\n\n\n .\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PANJAHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 52. TARA CHAND SON OF CHUHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BANKALA, TEHSIL NAHAN,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BHARON.\n\n 53. JASWANT SINGH SON OF DHANI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JAMTA, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n MONDLAHER. r\n 54. MEENA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI JASHWANT SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JAMTA, TEHSIL\n\n NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL SUKHCHAINPUR.\n\n\n 55. KHUSHAL CHAUHAN SONOF MOHAN PAL CHAUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF AMBWALA, POST OFFICE SAINWALA, SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MEERPUR KOTLA.\n\n\n\n\n 56. MINU KUMAR SON OF BHAGWATI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n H. NO. 28, VILLAGE RAMA TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ROMA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 57. SUDESH KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI KAMLESH DUTT,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAROGA TIKKER, POST OFFICE\n CHOKLI, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL NIHOG.\n\n 58. POONAM WIFE OF SHRI ARUNA KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JASNI, POST OFFICE NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 211\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GMS.\n SATOR BADON.\n\n 59. MONIKA WIFE OF ASHOK KUMAR RESIDENT OF HOUSE\n NO. 220/9 KUMAR GALI, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT\n\n\n\n\n .\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SATOR BADON.\n\n\n\n\n\n 60. ARCHANA KUMARI WIFE OF SURESH KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF HOUSE NO. 351/3, GANPAT VIHAR, NAHAN, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JABAL KA\n BAG.\n\n 61. ALAM GIR SON OF SHRI HAJIFATH DEEN, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE MOHKAMPUR NANAVA (106) SHIVPUR, PAONTA\n\n\n\n\n\n SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KINNER\n DHAMON. r\n 62. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SHRI NITYA NAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAEG LEHAMA MEHNDO BAG, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT\n\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJAHAL.\n\n 63. VIJAY LAXMI WIFE OF SHRI SANJEEV THAKUR,\n\n\n RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 219/6, NAYA BAZAAR, NAHAN,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KHAIRI.\n\n\n\n\n 64. SUNNY TOMAR SON OF SURAT SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n HOUSE NO. 42/1, WARD NO.4, SANT COLONY, SHAMSERPUR\n\n\n\n\n\n (117) TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL KHARA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 65. CHETNA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI VIVEK KAUSHILA,\n RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 320/2, RANI KA BAG, SHIMLA ROAD,\n NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n NIHOG.\n\n 66. ASHA DEVI WIFE OF INDER DUTT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE BIRLA, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 212\n\n\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL AMARKOT.\n\n 67. YASIN MOHD. SON OF SUDU DIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n KHERI, POST OFFICE TRILOKPUR, NAHAN, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM\n\n\n\n\n .\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BANETHI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 68. NEELAM DEVI WIFE OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH THAKUR,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAEG DOGHANA, POST OFFICE CHAKLI,\n NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BANETHI.\n\n 69. SURINDER SINGH CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI KHEWETA\n RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHILLI ADNOG, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n\n KATHWAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR AT NAHAN PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n KHALAKYAR. r\n 70. ANIL KUAMR SON OF SANT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n CHANDNI, POST OFFICE BHAROG BANERI, TEHSIL KAMRAU,\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KURLA KHARAK.\n\n\n 71. RAJENDER SINGH SON OF RANDEEP SINGH RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOTIDHIMAN, TEHSIL\n DADAHU, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTIDHIMAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 72. BABU RAM SON OF KISHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KHAIRI CHAIGAN, POST OFFICE KANGTA FAILAG,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KAMLAR.\n\n 73. RAJENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI ISHWAR DUTT,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOT, POST OFFICE CHALLANA,\n TEHSIL DADAHU, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n NEHAR SAWAR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 213\n\n\n 74. VIRENDER DUTT SON OF KEWAL RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KOT, POST OFFICE CHALLANA, TEHSIL DADAHU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BECHAR KA BAG.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 75. SHYAM LAL SON OF LATE CHET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KHALAKYAR, POST OFFICE JAMUKOTI, TEHSIL\n DADAHU, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL MEHAT.\n\n\n\n\n\n 76. VIRENDER SINGH SON OF TULSI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GHALJA, POST OFFICE JANUHOTI, TEHSIL DADAHU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL JANUKOTI.\n\n 77. BOBBY SHARMA SON OF SHRI SATYA NAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILALGE TIRMALI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL DADAHU,\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MOHTU.\n\n 78. DIMPAL SHARMA SON OF SHRI SUKH DARSHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOTLA MOLAR, TEHSIL NAHAN,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BAGAR.\n\n 79. SURENDER SINGH SON OF RANVIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DRABIL, POST OFFICE JARAG, TEHSIL DADAHU,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DRABIL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 80. MUKESH DUTT SON OF OM DUTT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n PATANJI MASHOBRA, POST OFFICE KUJJI, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DABHARA.\n\n 81. SURENDER PAL SON OF CHANDERMANI, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LOHARDI, POST OFFICE PANWA, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n DABHORA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 214\n\n\n 82. OM PARKASH SON OF TARA DUTT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n KATHAR POST OFFICE PANWA, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JANNOT.\n\n 83. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF PREM DUTT, ESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE GADOL, POST OFFICE PANWA, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DHAROTI.\n\n 84. IRENDER SINGH SON OF POORAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE MUDHORA, POST OFFICE PANWA, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DABHORA.\n\n 85. VENKTESHWAR DUTT SON OF HIMENDER DUTT,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAEG NAI LOTHAN AACHALI, POST OFFICE\n BAG PASHOG, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KANGAR-\n DHARYAR.\n\n\n 86. SUSHEEL SHARMA SON OF AMAR CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAG PASHOG, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SARAHAN.\n\n\n\n 87. ARUN KUMAR SON OF SURENDER DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHOUNDG, POST OFFICE CHAKLI, TEHSIL NAHAN,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL APRON.\n\n\n\n\n\n 88. KRISHAN DUTT SON OF SHRI AMBA DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JOJOHEN, POST OFFICE WASNI, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL RAJYAN.\n\n 89. KAPIL DEV SON OF ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n GHORGHON PLESHAN, POST OFFICE BAG PASHOG, TEHSIL\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SIRMOUR-MANDIR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 215\n\n\n 90. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SHRI KRISHAN MAURTI,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAT KA GAON, POST OFFICE\n BHELLON, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SIRMOUR MANDIR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 91. VIJAY CHAUHAN SON OF JAGMOHAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE BANAH-KI-SER, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BANAH-KI-SER.\n\n\n\n\n\n 92. RAM GOPAL ATTRI SON OF SUKH DEV ATTRI, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KATHAR, POST OFFICE PANWA, TEHSIL\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KUJJI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 93. SHAYAM DUTT SON OF SITA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n LEHANA, POST OFFICE MEHNDO BAG, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n KATHANJI.\n\n 94. SHYAM DUTT SON OF RAMESH DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NICHLA PANWA, POST OFFICE PANWA, TEHSIL\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL NAINA TIKKER.\n\n 95. RAVINDER DUTT SON OF BHAGAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n DEV KOTHI, POST OFFICE NAINA TIKKER, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS DM AT GHS LOJHOGARI.\n\n 96. DEEPAK PANDEY SON OF PADAM SAWROOP RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GARGON\n PLESHAN,.\n\n 97. DHARAM SINGH SON OF MUNNI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAJHAYANA, POST OFFICE NAINA TIKKER, TEHSIL\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL SHAMLATI MAJHGAON.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 216\n\n\n\n 98. VIMAL DEV SHARMA SON OF SHRI DEV SWAROOP,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UMARGAON PLESHAN, POST OFFICE\n BAG PASHOG, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SHARIA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 99. RAMESH CHAND SON OF JAGMOHAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAEG BAMNA, POST OFFICE WASNI, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BANONA .\n\n\n\n\n\n 100. SURESH KUMAR SON OF SUNDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAG BABSA, POST OFFICE KORGA, TEHSIL KAMRAU,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SAKHOLI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 101. GEETA WIFE OF SHRI NEERAJ KUMA SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SHARGAON, TEHSIL\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL DHAMOON, U/C GMSSS RAJGARH.\n\n 102. RUCHI CHAUHAN WIFE OF SHRI SURINDER SINGH\n VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKER, KATOGRA, POST\n OFFICE RERU, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DHAMOON, U/C GMSSS\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 103. SUMAN VERMA WIFE OF SHRI VINOD KUMAR, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HABBAN, TEHSIL RAJGARH,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DEEN\n DERIA U/C GMSSS RAJGARH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 104. SUDERSHAN SINGH SON OF SHRI AMAR SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHARNA, TEHSIL\n SANGRAH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n DHOR NIWAR U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BHANOG.\n .. PETITIONERS\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 217\n\n\n AND\n\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, SIRMAUR\n\n\n\n\n\n AT NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 18. CWP NO. 1545 OF 2021\n\n BETWEEN :\n\n 1. HUKKAM CHAND SON OF SHRI TEJ RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE RATHAL, POST OFFICE BALT, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL REUR U/C\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL REWALSAR.\n\n 2. MAHESH CHAND SON OF SHRI DEVAR RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE DRAL, POST OFFICE MAHUNAG, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH SON OF SHRI\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL SARTYOLA, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MAHUNAG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. NARINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI HEM RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHATYAR, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT SHASTRI AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KATHACHI,\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 4. DAMESHWAR SON OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHUNAL, POST OFFICE KATWACHI, SUB TEHSIL\n PANGNA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 218\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KATHACHI.\n\n 5. SATYA PRAKASH SON OF SHRI BALAK RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KASHOL, POST OFFICE KATWACHI, SUB TEHSIL\n PANGNA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n .\n POSTED AS OT SHASTI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n KANDHA SORTA U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KATHACHI.\n\n 6. VINOD KUMAR SON OF MANSA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE CHIUTH, POST OFFICE MAHOG, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KUTHED.\n\n\n\n\n\n 7. DHAMESHWAR KUMAR SON OF SHRI PARAS RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JHUGI, TEHSIL\n NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MALYOG\n\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHUNGI,\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 8. HITESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI DALEEP CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOHARA, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n (GIRLS) MANDI.\n\n 9. DUNI CHAND SON OF KULDEEP SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE PATI, POST OFFICE AND SUB-TEHSIL PANGNA,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n JHUNGI, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 10. SHILPA DEVI DAUGHTER OF MANGAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAEG PATTI, POST OFFICE AND SUB TEHSIL PANGNA,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JACHH, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JHUNGI, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 11. PREM RAJ SON OF SHRI MAHENDER RAJ GAUTAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDAN GALA, POST OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 219\n\n\n PRESSI, TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL KANDHI TIKKAR, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PRESSI, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 12. BABLU RAM SON OF SHRI KARAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE CHANDAN GALA, POST OFFICE PRESSI, TEHSIL\n NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENT\n PETITION DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KANDHI\n TIKKAR, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESSI, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 13. KHUB RAM SON OF SHRI TEJ SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PATHREVI, POST OFFICE SOMA KOTHI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL RICHHANI\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHANTHAL,\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 14. CHAMAN LAL SON OF SHRI LACHHI RAM, RESIDENT\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SERI BUNGALOW, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL RICHHANI\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHANTHAL,\n\n\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 15. HUKAM SINGH SON OF SHRI KRISHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SERI BUNGALOW, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL SERI BUNGALOW, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 16. ROOP SINGH SON OF SHRI DILA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KEHRU, POST OFFICE CHANIDHAR, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHAURIDHAR, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 17. VINOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI OM DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KATOL, POST OFFICE CHANIDHAR, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 220\n\n\n CHOURIDHAR, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 18. GAUTAM RAM SON OF SHRI DURAJ RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BHARAR, POST OFFICE MAHOG, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n .\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n MAHOG, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 19. GULASHAN MAHAJAN SON OF HET RAM RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MAROTHI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n MAROTHI, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 20. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI LABH SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE KANDHI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL PANGNA,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PANGNA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 21. YOG RAJ SON OF SHRI CHANDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE NAGLAI, POST OFFICE RUMAN CHHATRI, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT MANDI, HJP.. PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KAKRADHAR, U/C\n MEHARIDHAR, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 22. RUDER MANI SON OF SHRI DEEMA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DELAG, POST OFFICE SOMA KOTHI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL RICHHANI\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHANTHAL,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 23. PUSHAP RAJ SON OF SHRI MOTI RAM,L RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAGAIN, POST OFFICE BANERA, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LALAG, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 221\n\n\n 24. SHYAM LAL SON OF HARI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n LALAG, POST OFFICE KAO, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LALAG, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 25. HITESH KUMAR SON OF BUDHI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE JACHH, POST OFFICE JHUNGI, TEHSIL PANGNA,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JACCH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 26. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SANGAT RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TIHRI, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TIHRI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 27. LALIT KUMAR SON OF RAJESH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n KUTHACHI, POST OFFICE KAMAND, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BADAUN U/C GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KATAULA, MANDI.\n\n 28. AMAR DASS SON OF SHRI MAHANT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOHARA, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BAHWA U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GOHAR, MANDI.\n\n\n\n\n 29. HEM LATA WIFE OF PUSHP RAJ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE BIJLI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL ROPA U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS) MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH.\n\n 30. PRAKASH DEV SON OF SHRI JEJU, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHAHAL, POST OFFICE KAMANDH, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KATAULA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 31. NEELAM SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI LUXMI, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE 49/2, PURANI MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 222\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n BIJAN DHALWAN, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL (GIRLS) MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 32. DURGA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI KHUB RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JALAUN, POST OFFICE BARYARA, TEHSIL KOTLI,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BADOG, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 33. JYOTI SHARMA WIFE OF RAVINDER, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SHIVA, POST OFFICE RAJWARI, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KILLING, MANDI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 34. POONAM SHARMA DAUGHTER OF CHAMAN LAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHARAL, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MALOH, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 35. YOG RAJ SON OF SHRI KARAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KOHAL, POST OFFICE GAGGAL, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SAKROHA, MANDI,\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 36. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI LEKH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TEHSIL SUNDAY PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n GAMOHU, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n JARAL, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 37. VIPAN GULERIA SON OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHODA, POST OFFICE DAGWANI,\n TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DRABAL, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 38. REETA DEVI WIFE OF KARAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KANAID, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 223\n\n\n SIDHYANI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 39. NEK RAM SON OF NAROTAM RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE THAKAR, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n .\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BINDRAVANI U/C\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS) MANDI\n\n 40. DINA NATH SON OF SHRI LEKH RAM, RESIDENT VILLAGE\n BIJI, POST OFFICE BATWARA, TEHSIL SUNDAY PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n PANGALATH U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BATWARA, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 41. DEEP RAM SON OF SHRI MOHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n ALSU, POST OFFICE DEHAR, SUB-TEHSIL DEHAR, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DEHVI, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SLAPPER, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n 42. SHASHI KUMAR SON OF SHRI ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MAHADEV, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n\n\n JAKHARU U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KAPAHI, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 43. RAMA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SMT. GARDI DEVI,\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SERI KOTHI,\n TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n BARAT U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SERI KOTHI, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 44. HARSH VARDHAN SON OF SHRI HEM PRABH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PURANA BAZAAR, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL PATRALU/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KAPAHI, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 45. ANJU KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI GOVIND RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE DIDER, POST OFFICE KALWAN, TEHSIL BALI\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 224\n\n\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SHARTHI MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 46. PRAKASH CHAND SON OF SANT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LUHNU, POST OFFICE BAYAL, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n .\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BARTO MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 47. BODH RAJ SON OF SHRI PADAM SEN, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SERI KOTHI, TEHSIL NIHRI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BAROT U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SERI KOTHI,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 48. HEM SINGH SON OF DURGA SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KASHNA, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL AUT, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMMI, MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 49. HANS RAJ SON OF SHRI LUDER MANI, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PADHARU, POST OFFICE BAGGI, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n DADOH, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 50. INDRA DEVI DAUGHTER OF NETAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE DARBATHI, POST OFFICE LOHARA, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MANDOGALOO U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHACHYOT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 51. PUSHPA DEVI DAUGHTER OF HEM PRABH, RESIDENT OF\n RAJGARH, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL SOYRA, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS) BHANGROTU, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 52. GAYATRI DEVI DAUGHTER OF MEDH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BAGGI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 225\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NAUN, U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHACHYOT, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 53. DURGA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI KAMAL DEV,\n\n\n\n\n .\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JANJEHLI, POST OFFICE THUNAG,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MADI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMMI,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 54. BHUPENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI RAGHU RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JUGAHAN, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GHIRI, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 55. SATYA SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI PRAVEEN SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 89A, WARD NO.3, PUGHA, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS) SUNDERNAGAR, MANDI,\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 56. ANJANA THAKUR DAUGHTER OF DURGA DASS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TARNOH, TEHSIL\n\n\n KOTLI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KARKOH, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 57. NARESH KUMAR SON OF NAROTAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE THATHAR, POST OFFICE NAWAHI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL THANA U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL GOPALPUR.\n\n 58. SHIV RATTAN SON OF SHRI SOM DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KASRALA, POST OFFICE RAITI, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHHANGEHAR U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SIDHYANI,\n TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 226\n\n\n 59. SUNITA KUMARI WIFE OF NAGENDER SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE MOHARDHAR, POST OFFICE KUNNU, TEHSIL\n PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SILAG, MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 60. HEM LATA WIFE OF ARUN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KATIPARI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL PADHAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KSAUN, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHAR MANDI,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 61. RAJ KUMAR SON OF RUP CHAND, RESIDENT OF KAMPAN\n POST OFFICE SUDHAR, TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SWAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 62. OM PRAKASH SON OF GOVIND RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE ROPRU, POST OFFICE PADHWAN, TEHSIL PADHAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BABLI MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 63. BHUVNESHWAR DUTT SON OF CHAINA RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n OF VILLAGE SAMKHETAR, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL\n PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 64. KRISHAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI MAKHOLI RAM,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHUKKU, TEHSIL\n PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n CHUKKU MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 65. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI LEKH RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KHABOL, POST OFFICE URLA, TEHSIL PADHAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL NAGAN U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HELA MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 227\n\n\n 66. BHARAT KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DIBBER, POST OFFICE PANARSA, TEHSIL AUT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PANARSA, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 67. KHUSHAL SINGH SON OF SHRI ISHWAR DASS, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE DIBBER, POST OFFICE PANARSA, TEHSIL AUT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GMS. KIGAR, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL NAN PANAK, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH.\n\n 68. CHANDER KANTA DAUGHTER OF SHRI GIAN CHAND,\n RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 8/2, PURANI MANDI, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS)\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 69. SUMITRA DEVI WIFE OF PARTAP SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE JORI, POST OFFICE PANARSA, TEHSIL AUT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SHALA NIRHAR,\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 70. CHANDER PAL SON OF TEK SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n VILLAGE HASU, POST OFFICE PANARSA, TEHSIL AUT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL ODIDHAR, MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 71. VARUN KASHYAP SON OF SHRI SITA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SAOGI, POST OFFICE PANDOH, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n BANDAL, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 72. KHIMINDER SINGH SON OF SHRI SUNDER SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANJAWAN, POST OFFICE KHUHAN,\n TEHSIL BALI CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n SUDHRANI.\n\n 73. BHAG SINGH SON OF VED PRAKASH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAUSHAD, POST OFFICE KHOLANAL, TEHSIL BALI\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 228\n\n\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL BANDAL, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 74. NARPAT RAM SON OF SHRI INDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TANDI, POST OFFICE SAROA, TEHSIL CHACHYOT,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SAROA, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 75. RAMESH CHAND SON OF SHRI PURAN CHAND, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KHOLANAL, TEHSIL BALI\n CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SALOT, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 76. JAGDISH KUMAR SON OF BHIKHAM RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE ROPA, POST OFFICE KOT KHAMDRA, TEHSIL AUT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOT\n\n SNARE MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 77. DINESH SINGH SON OF SHRI JHAVE RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PUB, TEHSIL KOT KHAMARDA, TEHSIL AUT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PHAGLA U/C\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS)\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 78. KISHORI LAL SON OF SHRI BIRBAL RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHOWK, TEHSIL BALDWARA,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TIKRI\n SADHWARI, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 79. SHASHI PAL SON OF SHRI KANSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHANLAG, POST OFFICE PALAHRA, TEHSIL\n BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MAJHATH, MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 80. SAROJ KUMAR SON OF BRIJ LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n BARNAL, POST OFFICE DHALWAN, TEHSIL BALDWARA,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 229\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KELNI DHALWAN, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 81. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KOLNI, POST OFFICE DHALWAN, TEHSIL BALDWARA,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n .\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PIPLI HAWANI, U/C\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOLNI\n DHALWAN, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 82. HEMANT KUMAR SON OF SHRI DOOM RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE RATHOL, POST OFFICE BALT, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL NER U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS)\n BAHNGROTU, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n r to\n 83. JAGDISH SHARMA SON OF SHIR KUNDAN LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE SEHAL, POST OFFICE SIDHYANI, TEHSIL BALH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DAHNU U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SIDHYANI,\n\n TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 84. CHAMAN LAL SON OF PREM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GADHYARA, POST OFFICE SAJAU-PIPLU, TEHSIL\n\n\n DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL BADSARI U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL RIRRA MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 85. SAPNA WIFE OF SHRI RAM LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n BAHARA, POST OFFICE SEGLI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESHPRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TRAIMBALI\n\n\n\n\n\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 86. CHUNI LAL SON OF SHRI VED RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TIKKER, POST OFFICE BALU, TEHSIL AUT, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL TIKKER U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 230\n\n\n 87. GITENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI HARI SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAEG CHAMYAR, POST OFFICE TIHRA, TEHSIL\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n RASAIN GALU.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 88. SUNITA KUMARI WIFE OF SANJEEV KUMAR, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE MATHAHAR, POST OFFICE PANDOL, TEHSIL LAD\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BAG-PANDOL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 89. VINITA SHARMA WIFE OF VIKAS UPADHYAY RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL LAD BHADOL,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LAD\n BHADOL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 90. SUBHASH CHAND SON OF SHER SINGH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LAKHNOT, POST OFFICE MAKRIRI, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n KAKING.\n\n 91. RAMAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI SARWAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE MANOH, POST OFFICE BASSI, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BASSI.\n\n 92. OM PRAKASH SON OF SHRI NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE DHURLI, POST OFFICE LANGNA, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GUMMA DRANG I.\n\n\n\n\n\n 93. VINOD KUMAR SON OF CHANDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JAGAN, POST OFFICE CHAUNTRA, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n SAGNEHAR.\n\n 94. YATESHWAR KUMAR SON OF SHRI DEVI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE LAMBRAH POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NIHRI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHIRAL MINAHA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 231\n\n\n\n 95. GIAN CHAND SON OF SHRI JEET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE LAJHAG, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NIHRI.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 96. SAROJINI KUMARI DAUGHTER OFSURAM RAM,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAOGI, POST OFFICE BHANTHAL,\n TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BHANTHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 97. CHINT RAM SON OF SHRI LEELA DHAR, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAITHO, POST OFFICE SAPNOT, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL DHAR-KANAHLU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 98. BULI CHAND SON OF DEVI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n DELAG, POST OFFICE SOMA KOTHI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n AS OT SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KAO.\n\n 99. TOTA RAM SON OF SHRI PREM KUMAR RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAGRA, BHAMNAH, POST OFFICE MAHUNAG, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MAHUNAG.\n\n 100. THAKUR CHAND SON OF SHRI MEHAR CHAND, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE PATOG POST OFFICE MAHOG, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS OT SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MAHOG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 101. VIDYA DHAR SON OF TEK CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n BHANOUTI, POST OFFICE BAGSHAD, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT (SHASTRI) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BALINDI.\n\n 102. ARJINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI KANSHI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BHAMNALA, POST OFFICE BAGSHAD, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL CHIRAG.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 232\n\n\n 103. NEETA DEVI DAUGHTER OF AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE RANGHAN POST OFFICE MAHUNAG, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MAHU NAG.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 104. VED KUMAR SON OF SHRI NARSING DUTT, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n BOH, POST OFFICE MAHUNAG, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n (SHASTRI) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SHAINDHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 105. NAVMESHWAR SON OF SHRI DEEP CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE DHUNDAN POST OFFICE ALSINDI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n KHEEL.\n\n 106. VIRENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI DINA NATH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BHAKHAN, POST OFFICE MAHU NAG, TEHSIL\n\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n\n SARTYOLA.\n\n 107. NAVAL KISHORE SON OF RAMA NAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PARLOG, POST OFFICE OGLI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KHANEOL BAGRA.\n\n\n\n\n 108. KHEM RAJ SON OF SHRI LEELA DHAR RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KAITHO, POST OFFICE SAPNOT, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MEHRAN\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAHU NAG.\n\n\n\n\n\n 109. CHIRANJI LAL SON OF SHRI DHILU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SOWINDHAR, POST OFFICE JASSAL, TEHSIL\n KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT (SHASTRI) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n THALI BAJRAIL, U/C TATTAPANI.\n\n 110. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHIR ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JEORI, POST OFFICE TATTAPANI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 233\n\n\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n TATTPANI.\n\n 111. SANDHYA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI LEELA DHAR\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHEBRI POST OFFICE\n KHERA, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI OT AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHAKRA.\n\n 112. SANDEEP KUMAR SON OF SHRI NARAIN SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JAMNI TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL GAUNTA U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL JAMNI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 113. YUDHISTER KUMAR SON OF DAYA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE ROPA, POST OFFICE PAURA KOTHI, TEHSIL NIHRI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL THIHKAR U/C\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PAURA KOTHI.\n\n 114. CHUNI LAL SON OF SHRI MANI RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHEGAL, POST OFFICE PAURA KOTHI, TEHSIL NIHRI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL THIHKER U/C\n\n\n PAURA KOTHI.\n\n 115. BHIMA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI BALESH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHOJPUR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL PURANA BAZAAR U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL (GIRLS) SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT\n MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 116. MEENA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI TILAK RAJ, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KARKOH, POST OFFICE LOGDHARR, TEHSIL KOTI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KARKOH.\n\n 117. KARTAR SINGH SON OF SHRI ANANT RAM, RESIDENT FO\n VILLAGE DAGROUN, POST OFFICE KASHMAILA, TEHSIL\n BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 234\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KASHMAILA.\n\n 118. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI LUDERMANI SHARMA\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUKHBAG, POST OFFICE CHAUNTRA,\n TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL TIKRI MUSHERERA U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHAUNTRA.\n\n 119. RAJINDER SINGH SON OF SHRII PRATAP SINGH,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHAUNTRA, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL AHJOO.\n\n\n\n\n\n 120. VIVEK SHARMA SON OF SHRI HEM RAJ SHARMA\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MASOLI, POST OFFICE JALPEHAR,\n TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS) JOGINDERNAGAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 121. NEETU KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SR BHALARIA, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE ROD BHAKHER, POST OFFICE AHJOO, TEHSIL\n JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL AHJOO.\n\n 122. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI RIKHI RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n OF FAJLA, POST OFFICE PANJALAG, TEHSIL LAD BHADOL,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL KAHDDER.\n\n 123. VINOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHONTA, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SIMAS, TEHSIL LAD BHADOL,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SIMAS.\n\n 124. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SOHAN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF MAKAN KALA, POST OFFICE OOTPUR, TEHSIL LAD\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SANDHA\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL OOTPUR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 235\n\n\n 125. GAGAN SINGH SON OF SHRI JAGAT SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANDOL, TEHSIL LAD BHADOL,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BAGLA, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LAD BHADOL.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 126. PRABAHAT SINGH SON OF SHRI DAGU RAM, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE PATNU, POST OFFICE PANDOL, TEHSIL LAD\n BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PANDOL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 127. DEVENDER THAKUR SON OF SHRI MANGAT RAM,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAINS POST OFFICE BASONA, TEHSIL\n LAD BHADOL, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL GOLKLAN.\n\n 128. KARAM CHAND SON OF SHRI BALAK RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHARN, POST OFFICE PANARSA, TEHSIL AUT,\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHALAUHATI.\n\n 129. KHEM SINGH SON OF SHRI PARAS RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BADIRAN, POST OFFICE PANARSA, TEHSIL AUT,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHAUHATI.\n\n 130. CHHAMA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI SHANTI LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BADIRAN, POST OFFICE PANARSA, TEHSIL AUT,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHALAUHATI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 131. SURENDER THAKUR SON OF SHRI RAM SINGH THAKUR\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANJAIN, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n BALI CHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PANJAIN.\n . PETITIONERS\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 236\n\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION MANDI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n .. RESPONDENTS\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 19. CWP NO. 1547 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n 1. DEVI SINGH SON OF SHRI LABH SINGH, AGED 47 YEARS,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHARING, POST OFFICE\n TRILOKINATH, DISTRICT LAHUL & SPITI, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL AHAT.\n\n 2. RAJENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI AMEL CHAND RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE UDAIPUR, DISTRICT LAHUL &\n SPITI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MADGRAN.\n\n 3. PREM SINGH MIYAN SON OF DEVI SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE UDAIPUR, DISTRICT LAHUL &\n SPITI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL AHAT.\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. CHANDER GUPT SON OF RAM LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TINDI, DISTRICT LAHUL & SPITI,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BHUJUND.\n\n 5. AMARJEET SINGH SON OF SHRI HIRA LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SHANSHA, POST OFFICE JAHALMAN, DISTRICT\n LAHUL & SPITI, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOTE.\n\n 6. RAJESH SON OF SHRI PALJOR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n NUKAR, POST OFFICE GONDHLA, DISTRICT LAHUL & SPITI,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 237\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL THLONG.\n\n .. PETITIONERS\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\n .\n AND\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, LAHUL &\n SPITI, DISTRICT LAHUL & SPITI, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n .. RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 20. CWP NO. 1572 OF 2021\n\n BETWEEN\n\n\n\n 1. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI PADAM SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE GALOG, POST OFFICE DHAIR, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n AS DM AT GMSSS ANNI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. HEM RAJ SON OF DHIAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n BISHAL, POST OFFICE DIGERH, TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT\n KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DIGERH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. BHAG CHAND SON OF RAM SAWROOP, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KUTWA, POST OFFICE KAMAND, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JATERH, U/C GSSS\n KHUN.\n\n 4. SITA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI TARA CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KHANERI, POST OFFICE KOTHI TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 238\n\n\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KUINER U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DIGERH.\n\n 5. REKHA THAKUR WIFE OF SHRI SAT PRAKASH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAMHONG, POST OFFICE KANDAGAI,\n TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL LAMISERI, U/C GMSSS ANNI.\n\n 6. PAWAN KUMAR SONO OF SHRI INDER CHAND, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BANGUJHAKAR, POST OFFICE KANDAGAI,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL BAHU U/C GSSS, CHOWAI.\n\n 7. HITENDER KUMAR SON OF KISHORI LAL, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE GHOHAN, POST OFFICE DALASH, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SOIDHAR, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DALASH.\n\n 8. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI TIKAM RAM, RESIDENT OF\n\n VILLAGE MADATAN, POST OFFICE DIGERH, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BASHAWAL, U/C\n GSSS, KOTHI.\n\n\n\n 9. KANSHI RAM SON OF SHIR TABE RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE KASHTA, POST OFFICE OLWA, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KASHTA, U/C\n GMSSS ANNI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 10. SHANTA KUMAR SON OF SHRI NARAYAN SINGH,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANOG, POST OFFICE JAON, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n ANNI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KUTWA.\n\n 11. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SHRI TIKAM RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOTHI, TESIL ANNI, DISTRICT\n KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTHI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 239\n\n\n 12. CHAMAN LAL SON OF SURAT RAM, ESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n DAGAN, POST OFFICE POEG, TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT KULLU,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUNGASH.\n\n 13. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI HANSRAJ, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE OLWA, TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL OLWA.\n\n 14. HOSHYAR SINGH SON OF SHRI KEDAR SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE SHANI, POST OFFICE TANDI, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KHANI U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TANDI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 15. MEENA RAM SON OF SHRI GATU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE CHIMNI, POST OFFICE SHOWAD, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SHOWAD.\n\n\n 16. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI CHAMAN LAL, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE MANCHHANI, POST OFFICE KOTHI, TEHSIL ANNI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n MOTHI.\n\n 17. PREM SINGH SON OF SHRI SHER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHUTHI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL DOGHRI U/C\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHALLANG.\n\n 18. SITA RAM SHARMA SON OF BHAGAT RAM SHARMA,\n\n\n\n\n\n RESIDENTOF VILLAGE KARARSU, POST OFFICE KAIS, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n KARARSU, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KAIS.\n\n 19. RAM LAL SON OF SHRI JHABE RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JANA, POST OFFICE ARCHANDI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 240\n\n\n AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL JANA, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAGGAR.\n\n 20. SHASHI SON OF SHRI TEK RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n KHARKA, POST OFFICE BHALYANI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n .\n SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BADAH U/C\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHALPUR.\n\n 21. YASH PAL SON OF SHRI AJEET SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SAJLA, POST OFFICE KARJAN, TEHSIL MANALI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL. SAJLA, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HARIPUR.\n\n 22. OM PARKASH SHARMA SON OF SHRI KHEM RAJ\n\n\n\n\n\n SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HARIPUR,\n TEHSIL MANALI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n SCHOOL RUMSU, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL NAGGAR.\n\n 23. RITA SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI SOHAN LAL,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KALAH, TEHSIL\n MANALI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS SHASTRI AT GMS. VASHISHT, U/C GOVERNMENT\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANALI.\n\n 24. VIKAS SON OF SHRI OM PRAKASH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BAGA, POST OFFICE KATRAIN, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NERI, U/C\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KATRAIN.\n\n 25. MAN SINGH SON OF SHRI MANGAL CHAND, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SHANGHAN, POST OFFICE BHALYANI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS SHASTRI AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHOPARSA, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHUTHI.\n\n 26. GAUTAM DEV SON OF SH. UTTAM CHAND, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL MANALI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 241\n\n\n 27. HARDYAL SON OF BODH RAM, PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KOYAL, TEHSIL\n NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 28. HARNAM SINGH SON OF SH. TEJA SINGH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n .\n SCHOOL DEEM, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 29. JAGDISH CHAND SON OF SH. CHAIN RAM, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL ANAS,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 30. BHARAT DASS SON OF SH. BHIMA RAM, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GMS. BAYAL, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT\n KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n SCHOOL to\n 31. MAN SINGH SON OF SH. KESAR SINGH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n ARSU, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 32. DINESH CHAND BISHT SON OF SH. DOLA RAM BISHT,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL SHOHACH, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n 33. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SH. NEHAR SINGH, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KASHOLI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 34. RAM KRISHAN SON OF SH. AMAR CHAND, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS OT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KASHOLI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 35. ANJANA DEVI DAUGHTER OF RAM NATH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PLALANG, POST OFFICE BHUTHI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED\n AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KHARAHAL.\n\n 36. VINAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI MOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n DOBHA, POST OFFICE BRAN, TEHSIL MANALI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 242\n\n\n KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL PRINI U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BRAN.\n\n 37. VIDYA SINGH SON OF SHRI BEINSU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BEASER, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BEASER U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAISON.\n\n 38. VED KUMAR SON OF DALEEP KUMAR, RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE CFHARMALA, SUB TEHSIL NITHAR DISTRICT KULLU,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NITHAR.\n\n .. PETITIONERS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1.\n\n STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, KULLU,\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n .. RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n\n\n\n\n\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 21. CWP NO. 1707 OF 2021.\n\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n 1. MUKESH KUMAR SON OF DURGA RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE RIRI, POST OFFICE JUKHALA, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GMS. SASOUR, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL JUKHALA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 243\n\n\n 2. BUDH RAM SON OF AMRU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n BAG, POST OFFICE SWAHAN, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI,\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SWAHAN.\n\n 3. RAJNI DEVI DAUGHTER OF LACHMAN DASS, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n .\n OF TIKRI, POST OFFICE PANJGRAN, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM\n AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SAI BRAHMNA.\n\n 4. CHAIN SINGH SON OF MUNSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF ROPA,\n\n\n\n\n\n POST OFFICE DHAN KOTHI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JAMLA U/C GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAMHOL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 5. KHEM SINGH SON OF NIKKU RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SIKROHA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHIKROHA.\n\n 6. SHEELA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHER SINGH, RESIDENT\n\n OF JABLAYANA NANAWAN, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SALNOO.\n\n\n 7. PREM CHANND SON OF ANATH RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE POHNI, POST OFFICE DEOTH, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL TEPRA\n\n\n\n\n KHAS.\n\n\n\n\n\n 8. RAJENDER SINGH SON OF CHET RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE SAMADI, POST OFFICE DEOTH, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL NAMHOL.\n\n 9. KHEM RAJ SON OF BHAGAT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE CHAKKOH TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM\n AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MALOKHAR.\n\n 10. MANISH KUMAR SON OF DAULAT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE JANED, POST OFFICE SIKROHA, TEHSIL SADAR,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 244\n\n\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS DM AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SOHRI.\n\n 11. RITESH KAUNDAL SON OF KRISHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE GHAGAS, POST OFFICE BINOLA, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JANGAL\n JHALERA.\n\n 12. LALIT KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, RESIDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF VILLAGE MAJHOT, POST OFFICE BRAHAMPUKHAR,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n MALOKHAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 13. PARAS RAM SON OF PALU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n TIKKRI, POST OFFICE PANJGAIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL DHAN KOTHI.\n\n 14. JAI PRAKASH SON OF CHARAN DASS THAKUR,\n\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GOELA PANNER,\n TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL PANGWANA, U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n SCHOOL TARWAR.\n\n 15. JARNAIL SINGH SON OF PREM SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TARWAR, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, BILASPUR,\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS DM AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PANGWANA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 16. HARBANS SIGNH SON OF SURAT SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n DHARA, TEHSIL SRI NAINA TIKKER, TEHSIL PACHHAD,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MEOTH,\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TARWAR.\n\n 17. SANDHYA LAL SON OF BHAG SIGH, RESIDENT OF VILAGE\n TAUN, POST OFFICE SWARGHAT, DSITRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHHAMB-BHUJAN.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 245\n\n\n 18. VIPAN SHARMA SON OF SHRI SADA NAND SHARMA,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHAR-TATOH,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n BADHYAT.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 19. SHASHI PAL SON OF PREM LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n AND POST OFFICE PANHEDA, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL PATHERA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 20. RAJ KUMAR SON OF LAL SINGH, RESIDENT VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE GHANDALJRI, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BHARDALWIN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 21. ANIL KUMAR SON OF TULSI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE\n SATAHLWI, POST OFFICE GHANDALWIN, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL BARAMAN.\n\n 22. CHAMAN LAL SON OF PRABHU RAM SHARMA, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE NANAWA, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT\n BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BALSHI.\n\n\n\n 23. MANOJ KUMAR SON OF CHINT RAM, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BERI DAROLA, POST OFFICE BEHNA JATTAN, TEHSIL\n JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE\n SCHOOL DHARARSANI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 24. PUSHPA DEVI DAUGHTER OF TULSI RAM, BHARDWAJ,\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KANDRAUR, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHASTRI AT AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL JANGAL JHALEDA.\n\n 25. SURENDER KUMAR SON OF PREM LAL, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PALOG, POST OFFICE DAGSECH, TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PALOG\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAMHOL.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 246\n\n\n 26. PYARE LAL SON OF SADA RAM, RESIDENT VILLAGE BALH\n BALDWANA, POST OFFICE CHANDPUR TEHSIL SADAR,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MANDIR\n MANWA U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n RAGHUNATPURA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 27. RAJU SON OF TULSI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PALOG,\n POST OFFICE DAGSECH, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PET AT AT\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL NIHARKHRA BASK.\n\n\n\n\n\n 28. DALJEET SINGH SON OF SHRI KHUSHI RAM, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH RESIDENT OF PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS PET AT AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL BEHAL, BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH\n .. PETITIONERS\n (BY MS. DEVYANI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.\n\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.\n\n 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,\n\n\n\n\n BILASPUR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n .. RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL).\n\n 22. CWP NO. 2705 OF 2022.\n\n BETWEEN\n\n 1. SH. LAL SINGH, AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SH. SANT\n RAM, R/O VILLAGE GHIAL, POST OFFICE NAMHOL, TEHSIL\n SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n TGT (NM) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JAMLA U/C\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 247\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAMHOL,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, (H.P.).\n\n 2. SH. CHAMAN LAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O BABOO\n RAM, R/O VILLAGE LUHARDA, POST OFFICE DEOTH, TEHSIL\n SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n\n\n\n\n .\n PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL TEPRA KHAS U/C\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAMHOL,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, (H.P.).\n\n 3. SH. MADAN LAL, AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS. S/O SH. LAKHU\n\n\n\n\n\n RAM, R/O VILLAGE LUHARDA, POST OFFICE DEOTH, TEHSIL\n SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n PET AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL LUHARDA U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DEOTH,\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n ...PETITIONERS.\n\n (BY SH. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.\n\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001.\n .....RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n\n\n\n\n 23. CWP NO. 2695 OF 2022.\n\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN\n\n 1. SMT. INDU KIRAN, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O SH.\n MAHENDER KUMAR GARG, R/O VILLAGE GHIAL, POST OFFICE\n NAMOHOL, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (H.P)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL NAMOHAL, DISTRICT BILASPUR (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 248\n\n\n 2. SMT. RENUKA, AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O SH. MANEESH\n THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE GHIAL, POST OFFICE NAMHOL,\n TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (H.P.), PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS LECTURER (CHEMISTRY) AT GOVERNMENT\n MODEL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DHUNDAN, DISTRICT\n SOLAN, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 3. SMT. ARTI DIXIT, AGE 40 YEARS, D/O SH. GHANSHYAM\n W/I SH. AMNEESH GAUTAM, R/O VILLAGE BHALLU, POST\n OFFICE BERTHIN, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n (HISTORY) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n GANDHIR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (H.P.).\n ...PETITIONERS.\n\n (BY SH. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. to\n STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001.\n .....RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n\n\n\n 24. CWP NO. 1917 OF 2022.\n\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN\n\n 1. NEK CHAND (LECTURER POL SCIENCE), S/O SH. JAGAT\n\n\n\n\n\n RAM, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BEHLI,\n TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL BEHLI, MANDI, H.P.\n\n 2. PARDEEP KUMAR (T.G.T. ARTS), S/O SH. LUXMI NAND\n AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SOJHA, POST OFFICE\n BEHLI, TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL BEHLI, MANDI,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 249\n\n\n 3. SOHAN SINGH (T.G.T. ARTS), S/O SH. KIRPA RAM AGED\n 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KINDER, POST OFFICE BEHLI,\n TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL BEHLI, MANDI, H.P.\n\n 4. TRIPTA DEVI, (LECTURER HINDI) D/O SHRI SOHAN\n\n\n\n\n .\n SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DHANU, P.O.\n\n\n\n\n\n RAKOL, TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL TATTA PANI, MANDI, H.P.\n\n ...PETITIONERS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n SECRETARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA-2, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,\n DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n 3. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n .....RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n\n\n\n 25. CWP NO. 2391 OF 2021.\n\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN\n\n 1. RAJESH KUMAR, S/0 H KARTAR CHAND AGED 45\n\n\n\n\n\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY,\n R/O VILLAGE HALAN (AMBARI), POST OFFICE MALAN, TAHSIL\n MAGROTA BAGWAN, DISTRICT KANGRA R.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. BR. BEC SCHOOL BANHOON.\n\n 2. THAKUR SINGH CHAWLA, S/0 SHKALU RAM CHAWLA\n AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) ECONOMICS, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHAKKU,\n TEHSIL PADHER, DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.) PRESENTLY POSTED\n AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL THALTUKHOD.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 250\n\n\n\n 3. HUKAM CHAND S/0 SH PARMA NAND, AGED ABOUT 44\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY R/O\n VILLAGE SASTI, P.O. URLA, TEHSIL PADHER DISTRICT MANDI\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS THAL-TUKHOD.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 4. KUMARI KANCHAN D/O SH NEK RAM AGED 46 YEARS\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) SOCIOLOGY R/O\n VILLAGE TRAINBLY, P.O. DRUBBAL, TEHSIL JOGINDER\n NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI (H. P.) PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL THALTUKHOD.\n\n\n\n\n\n 5. RAJENDER SAIN S/O UDHAM RAM, AGED ABOUT 46\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) POLITICAL\n SCIENCE, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HANGO TEHSIL\n POOH DISTRICT KINNAUR H. P. 172112, PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL PIRAN DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 6. SURINDER KUMAR S/O SH TEJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY\n\n R/O VILLAGE MAROTI, P.O. DUGLI, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA (H.P.) PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR.\n\n SEC SCHOOL DUGLI.\n\n 7. SANDEEP KUMAR S/O SH SURINDER KUMAR AGED\n ABOUT 40 YEARS OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n POLITICAL SCIENCE R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KANDLA,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL DUGLI.\n\n\n\n\n 8. PORKHI RAM S/O SH HARDEV AGED 43 YEARS\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) POLITICAL SCIENCE,\n\n\n\n\n\n R/O VILLAGE KHANDER P.0. CHANDRA, TEHSIL CHURAH\n DISTRICT CHAMBA H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR.\n SEC SCHOOL BAGHOIGARH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 9. AMITA NAYYAR W/O RAMAN NAYYAR AGED ABOUT 43\n YEARS OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI R/O\n MOHAL RAMGARH JANSALI NEAR ITI ROAD DISTRICT\n CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL\n BAAT.\n\n 10. OM KUMAR S/0 AH. KAHAN CHAND AGED 41 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER PHYSICS, R/O VILLAGE LOWER\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 251\n\n\n HAWAI P.0. SHIAH TEHSIL BHUNTAR DISTRICT KULLU H. P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL JALLUGRAN.\n\n 11. UDAI RAM S/O SH MANNHI RAM AGED 54 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION SCHOOL LECTURER ECONOMICS, R/O VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE JALLUGRAN DISTRICT KULLU H.P.\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL PINNI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 12. ABHIMANYU BHANDARI S/O SH SAWATANTRA KUMAR\n BHANDARI AGED 38, OCCUPATION LECTURER PHYSICS, R/O\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GARSA DISTRICT KULLU H. P.\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL JARI.\n\n 13. BUDH RAM, S/O SH KHEKH RAM AGED 37 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER HISTORY, R/O VILLAGE RATOCHA\n POST OFFICE DHARA DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.. PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL JALLUGRAN.\n\n 14. ANJANA DEVI, D/O SH MIRMAL, AGED 38 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER ENGLISH, R/O VILLAGE SAMIRAG,\n\n POST OFFICE BHARAI, DISTRICT KULLU H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT.SR. SEC SCHOOL BAJAURA.\n\n 15. PREM LATA, D/O SH MOHAN LAL, AGED 38 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER HINDI, R/O VILLAGE SARSAI, POST\n OFFICE HARIPUR, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL SARI BHEKHALI.\n\n 16. LUHARU RAM THAKUR S/O SH BIR CHAND, AGED 38\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER COMMERCE R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n BANOGI, POST OFFICE BHEKHALI, DISTRICT KULLU H. P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL SARI\n\n\n\n\n\n BHOKHALI.\n\n 17. CHAMAN SINGH, S/O SHBASAKHU RAM, AGED 41\n\n\n\n\n\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER PHYSICS, R/O VILLAGE\n MATHALA, POST OFFICE BHUTHI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL SAINJ.\n\n 18. RAHUL KUMAR, S/O SH SHIV LAL, AGED 42 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER ENGLISH, VILLAGE KROZING, POST\n OFFICE MALANG, DISTRICT LAHAUL AND SPITI, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL SOYAL.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 252\n\n\n 19. PARAM DEV, S/O SHMOTI RAM, AGED 45 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE, R/O VILLAGE\n DADHEI POST OFICE JARI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL PINNI.\n\n 20. NARESH KUMAR, S/O SHDHANI RAM, AGED 50 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n .\n OCCUPATION LECTURER ENGLISH, R/O VILLAGE RONGA,\n\n\n\n\n\n POST OFFICE THELLA, DISTRICT KULLU, H. P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL THELLA.\n\n 21. SONAM ANGMA, D/O SH NAWANG TANZIN, AGED 38\n\n\n\n\n\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER, R/O WARD NO.4, HOSTEL\n ADARSH,POST OFFICE MANALS DISTRICT KULLU, R.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL NAGAR.\n\n 22. BALBIR SINGH, S/0 BHIMI RAM, AGED 44 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER COMMERCE, R/O VILLAGE BATEHAR\n POST OFFICE ARCHHANDI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL JALLUGRAN.\n\n 23. HEM RAJ, S/O DOOT RAN, AGED 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION\n LECTURER ECONOMICS, R/O VILLAGE BALADHI, P.O. JAREE\n\n TEHSIL BHUNTAR, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL JALLUGRAN.\n\n 24. NAROTTAM CHAND S/O SHSOHAN CHAND, AGED 45\n\n\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI,\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SAPRUL, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS\n BACHHWAI.\n\n\n\n\n 25. SAVITA GULERIA, W/O VIJAY GULERIA, AGED 50 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI, VILLAGE\n CHAH, P.O. MALKHER, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KAGRA,\n H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SANHOON.\n\n\n\n\n\n 26. MOHINDER SINGH S/O SH BHARTHARI RAM AGE 42\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) COMMERCE,\n R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PURBA, TEHSIL DHEERA,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS\n BACHHWAI.\n\n 27. NARESH RANA S/O SH RATTAN LAL AGE 44 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICS, R/O\n VILLAGE KUHANA AND POST OFFICE DHEERA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 253\n\n\n DHEERA, DISTRICT KANGA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GSSS BACHHWAI.\n\n 28. RAVINDER KUMAR S/O SHHARI SINGH AGED 48 YEARS\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) COMMERCE, R/O\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PURBA, TEHSIL DHEERA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT KANGRA, B.P. PRESENTLY AT GSSS BACHHWAI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 29. SIKANDER KUMAR S/O SH. DESH RAJ, AGED 39 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW), R/O VILLAGE TIP,\n P.O. SURANI TEHSIL KIHUDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL TEHRI.\n\n 30. SHAILJA SHARMA D/O DR. JAGMOHAN SHARMA, AGED\n 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER ENGLISH, R/O VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL PALAMPUR.\n\n 31. SANDEEP KUMAR DADHWAL S/O SHAKTI CHAND\n DADHWAL, AGED 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER HINDI\n\n R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PURBA, TEHSIL DHEERA,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR.\n\n SEC SCHOOLGHARANA.\\n\n 32. MILAP CHAND S/O SH BUDHI SINGH, AGED 47 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER HINDI, R/O VILLAGE SANWAR, P.0.\n\n\n PURBA, TEHSIL DHEERA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n ATTEST AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL KIARWAN.\n\n 33. PINKESH KUMARI D/O SH SARAN DASS, AGED 38 YEARS.\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER MATHEMATICS, R/O VILLAGE\n RUMAHAR, 9.0. DHEERA TEHNIL DHEERA, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n\n\n\n\n\n H. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL KIARWAN.\n\n 34. ARTI BALA D/O SH KAMAL SINGH, AGED 43 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER HINDI, R/O VILLAGE LAHAR, POST\n OFFICE DHEERA, TEHSIL DHEERS, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.,P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL DHEERA.\n\n 35. HEM RAJ S/O MANSA RAM, AGE 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) RINDI, R/O VILLAGE BROTA P.0.\n CHANDI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GSSS KUTHER, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 254\n\n\n 36. LEKH RAJ, S/O MANSA RAM, AGE 45 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER SCHOOL NEW HISTORY, R/O\n VILLAGE BROTA, P.0. CHANDI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT ASSS MASROOND, CHAMBA.\n\n 37. NARESH KUMAR, S/O CHAMARU RAM, AGE 44 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n .\n OCCUPATION SCHOOL LECTURER ECONOMICS, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n KHAMUIEN, P.O. KIANI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GSSS KUTHER, CHAMBA.\n\n 38. KALPANA DEVI, D/O MAHASU RAM, AGED 39 YEARS\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ENGLISH, R/O\n VILLAGE KHAMUIEN, P.O. KHIANI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS MASROOND, CHAMBA.\n\n 39. RAMA NAND, S/O TEJ RAJ AGE 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION\n\n\n\n\n\n LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ENGLISH, R/O VILLAGE BIHALI,\n P.O. SUNDLA, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS BALERA, CHAMBA.\n\n 40. OM PRAKASH, S/O BAL KRISHAN, AGED44 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICS, R/O\n\n VILLAGE V.P.O. SUNDIA, TEHSIL SALOONI, CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS SUNDLA, CHAMBA.\n\n 41. RAKESH KUMAR, S/O SUNEET SINGHM AGE 41 YEARS,\n\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) ECONOMICS, R/O\n VILLAGE BIHALI, P.O. SUNDLA, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS CHAKLOO,\n CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n 42. MINAKSHI KUMARI, D/O BISHAN SINGH, AGED 37\n\n\n\n\n\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HINDI, R/O\n VILLAGE PALEHIO, P.O. CHAKLOO, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS CHAKLOO,\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA.\n\n 43. MANESH, S/O DAYA SAGAR, AGED 40 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER SCHOOL NEW) COMMERCE, R/O\n VILLAGE CHANDI, P.O. CHANDI LAROG, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS CHAKLOO, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n 44. ARUN KUMAR, S/O HEM PRAKASH, AGED 41 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) CHEMISTRY, R/O\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 255\n\n\n VILLAGE SUNGLA, P.O. BAROUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT BHARIAN KOTHI,\n CHAMBA.\n\n 45. PURAN SINGH, S/O NEEL CHAND, AGED 43 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) HISTORY, R/O\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHARWAS, TEHSIL PANGI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS KHANI,\n CHAMBA.\n\n 46. OM PRAKASH, S/OSH BALDEV SINGH, AGED 41 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER ENGLISH, R/O VILLAGE RAJOUR,\n P.0. PARANGALA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS BHARMOUR, CHAMBA.\n\n 47. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O PRAKASH CHAND, AGED 38 H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE, R/O\n VILLAGE BARI, P.O. AND TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS BHARMOUR,\n CHAMBA.\n\n 48. PRITAM CHAND. S/O SH JAISHI RAM, AGED 49 YEARS,\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER COMMERCE, R/O VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE CHANHAUTA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, CHAMBA,\n H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS BHARMOUR, CHAMBA.\n\n\n 49. USHA KUMARI, W/O SH SURINDER KUMAR, AGED 41\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER ECONOMICS, R/O VILLAGE\n SUNGRER, P.O CHHATRARI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS POOLAN, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n 50. SONU RAM, S/O SH AAPTU RAM, AGED 43 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION LECTURER HISTORY, R/O VILLAGE MANDO, P.O.\n SER KAO, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GSSS POOLAN, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 51. PAWAN KUMAR S/O SH KRISHAN CHAND, AGED 44\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE, R/O\n VILLAGE PALIN P.O. SIRDI, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS POOLAN, CHAMBA.\n\n 52. KULBHUSHAN SINGH, S/O SH KEEMAT RAM, AGED 41\n YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER ECONOMICS, R/O VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE GHARER, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS BATOT, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 256\n\n\n\n ....PETITIONERS.\n\n (BY SH. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n SECRETARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA-2, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE\n\n\n\n\n\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H.P.\n\n 3. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H.P.\n ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY. SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 26. CWP NO. 2392 OF 2021.\n\n BETWEEN\n\n\n 1. PIYUSH RAJ LATE SH. DESH RAJ AGE 33 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE ARLA\n TEHSIL PALAMPUR DISTRICT KANGRA H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL DEHAN.\n\n\n\n\n 2. DINESH KUMAR S/O SATYA NAND AGE 40 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION SHASTRI OT, R/O VILLAGE\n BANDOBARDHAN,P.O. WARSI TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT\n SIRMOUR H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS CHABYOGA\n MAJHER U/C GOVT.SR. SEC SCHOOL SARSU\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. RAMAN KUMAR S/O SH RAMESH DUTT AGE 33\n OCCUPATION DM R/O VILLAGE LANA KASAR, P.O. SARSOO,\n TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GMS CHABYOGA MAJHER U/C GOVT. SR. SEC\n SCHOOL SARSU.\n\n 4. CHANDER KANTA D/O SH JAWALA DASS AGE 37 YEARS\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE GHNDEL, P.O. WASRI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 257\n\n\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GMS CHABYOGA MAJHER U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL SARSU.\n\n 5. BABU RAM S/O SH DAYA RAM AGE 41 YEARS\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE FAGLA, P.0 JAIHAR, TEHSIL\n PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n\n\n\n\n .\n GHS KOTLA-PANJOLA U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL KUJJI\n\n\n\n\n\n 6. BALAM SINGH, S/O SH JEET SINGH, AGE 45YEARS\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE CHIUDAH, P.O.\n TIKROO,TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS LOHANI U/C GMSSS SALOONI\n CHAMBA.\n\n 7. NARAIN SINGH S/O SH CHAIN LAL AGE 40 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION PET R/O VILLAGE SHELLI, P.O. MANJEER\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GMS LOHANI U/C GMSSS SALOONI CHAMBA.\n\n 8. HEM RAJ S/O SH SANSAR CHAND AGE 38 YEARS\n\n OCCUPATION PET R/O VILLAGE TILORI P.O. SUNDLA, TEHSIL\n SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n\n GHS SARAR.\n\n 9. AMAR SINGH S/O SH DAOULAT RAM AGE 43 YEARS\n OCCUPATION PET R/O VILLAGE VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n\n\n PIRAN TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA. PRESENTLY POSTED\n AT GMS TARAI U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL PIRAN.\n\n 10. RAHUL SHARMA S/O SH JEET RAM SHARMA AGE 33\n\n\n\n\n YEARS, OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n PIRAN, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA. PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL PIRAN.\n\n 11. SHEELA DEVI, D/O SH KRISHAN DASS AGE 38 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION SHASTRI OT, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n PIRAN, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA. PRESENTLY POSTED\n AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL PIRAN.\n\n 12. KARAN SINGH THAKUR, S/O SH KRISHAN SINGH\n THAKUR AGE 32 YEARS OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE CHANDPUR,TEHSIL PALAMPUR DISTRICT\n KANGRA. H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL\n CHANDPUR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 258\n\n\n 13. VIPAN KUMAR S/O SH AJEET SINGH AGE 42 YEARS\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE TAMLOH, P.O GHARANU,\n TEHSIL DHEERA DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.\n\n 14. MANJEET SINGH S/O SH KASHMIR SINGH AGE 38\n YEARS, OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE RAKH, P.O.\n\n\n\n\n .\n KIARWAN, TEHSIL DHEERA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL KIARWAN.\n\n 15. MONIKA MEHRA S/O SH RAM LAL AGE 42YEARS,\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. KHERA, THE.\n\n\n\n\n\n PALAMPUR, DISTT. KANGRA, (H. P.) PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL LOWER KHAIRA.\n\n 16. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SH. CHAMEL CHAND RANA, AGE 38\n YEARS, OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE LAGHIAN, P.O.\n\n\n\n\n\n KHAIRA, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL KHIARA.\n\n 17. VINAY KUMAR, S/O SH RAMESH CHAND, AGE 37 YEARS\n\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DEHAN,\n PALAMPUR TEHSIL KANGRA H.P.\n\n 18. JARNAIL SINGH S/O LT. SH AMEEN CHAND AGE 37\n YEARS OCCUPATION DM R/O VILLAGE BAH POST OFFICE\n RAJHOON, TEHSIL DEHEERA DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL LARAHAN\n THAKRAN.\n\n 19. OM PRAKASH, S/O SH MOTI RAM, AGE 45, OCCUPATION\n\n\n\n\n PET, R/O VILLAGE TULGA, P.O. BARSHANI DISTRICT KULLU\n H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL PILGA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 20. CHANDER SEN, S/O SH KRISHAN CHAND RANA, AGE 45,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KASOL,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC\n SCHOOL JARI.\n\n 21. LOVNEESH KUMAR, S/O SH KEHAR CHAND, AGE 41,\n OCCUPTION PET, R/O VILLAGE BAROGI, P.O. DHARA\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE\n SCHOOL GRAHAN U/C GSSS MANIKARAN.\n\n 22. GIRDHARI LAL S/O SH RAM LAL AGE 41, OCCUPATION\n PET, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SACHANI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 259\n\n\n KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL\n SACHANI.\n\n 23. MANU BALA, D/O SH SHYAM LAL, AGED 37, OCCUPATION\n DM, R/O VILLAGE BHATGRAN, P.O. PIPLAGE, DISTRICT\n KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR SEC SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n .\n BAJAURA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 24. TANU D/O SH VIKRAM SINGH JAMWAL, AGES 32,\n OCCUPATION DM, VILLAGE SARABAI, P.0. BHUNTAR,\n DISTRICT RULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC.\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL MOHAL.\n\n 25. GIAN CHAND, S/O SH BHAG CHAND, AGED 46,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE TEEL, P.O. BRADHA,\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL MALANA.\n\n 26. RAMESH KUMAR, S/O SH HRIDEY RAM, AGED $9 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE FAGU, P.O. DHARA, DISTRICT\n\n KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL\n DHAMASHORNI U/C GSSS JALLUGRAN.\n\n 27. SUSHIL SHARMA, S/O SH BELI RAM, AGED 42 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE THRAS, P.O. BURLA,\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE\n\n\n SCHOOL PIPLAAGE U/C GSSS BHUNTAR.\n\n 28. JHABE RAM, S/O SH. CHUNI LAL, AGED 38 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION SHASTRI, R/O VILLAGE THRAS, P.O. BURLA,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, B.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH\n SCHOOL BHALLAN U/C GSSS BREHAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 29. MOHAN RAKESH, S/O SH. BAL MUKUND, AGED 47\n YEARS, OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE TALARA, P.0. BRAIN,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR.\n SEC. SCHOOL SAINJ.\n\n 30. BRIJ BHUSHAN, S/O SH VIDYA PRAKASH, AGED 40\n YEARS, OCCUPATION SHASTRI, R/O VILLAGE AND POST\n OFFICE KOKHAN,, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED\n AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL GOHI U/C BREHAN.\n\n 31. OM PRAKASH, S/O SH TARA CHAND, AGED 41 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE KHARKA, P.O. BHALYANI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 260\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH\n SCHOOL BHUMTEER U/C GSSS BHUTHI.\n\n 32. SURENDER KAPOOR S/O SH. OM CHAND KAPOOR, AGED\n 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n SEC. SCHOOL JALLUGRAN.\n\n\n\n\n\n 33. AMAR NATH S/O SH. RULDA RAM, AGED 46,\n OCCUPATION PET, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PANGAN,\n TEHSIL MANALI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n ATGOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL PANGAN.\n\n 34. PRAGATI D/O SH. MOOL CHAND, AGED 33, OCCUPATION\n DRAWING MASTER, R/O VILLAGE TEGUBEHAR, P.. KHOKHAN,\n TEHSIL BHUNTAR, DISTRICT KULLU, B.P. PRESENTLY POSTED\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL AKHRA.\n\n 35. KUNJ LAL, S/O SH. TEJ RAM, AGED 45 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE SHAGCHAR, P.0. PANGAN,\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE\n SCHOOL LIGAN U/C GSSS PANGAN.\n\n 36. THARMAN LAL S/O SH. KEWAL RAM, AGED 43 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE JANA P.0. ARCHANDI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH\n\n\n SCHOOL JANA.\n\n 37. ROHIT VAID S/O SH. DORJE VAID, AGED 39,\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE BARNOT, P.O. ARCHANDI,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH\n SCHOOL JANA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 38. DURGA DEVI, D/O SH. DANDUP RAM, AGED 35,\n OCCUPATION SHASTRI, R/O VILLAGE BHADYOLI, P.O..\n\n\n\n\n\n SACHANI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL GRASA.\n\n 39. INDER SINGH, S/O SH. THAKAR DASS, AGED 46 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE JATHANI, P.O. BHALYANI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE\n SCHOOL BADGRAN.\n\n 40. BHUPENDER SINGH, S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH, AGED 37\n YEARS, OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE JATHANI, P.O.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 261\n\n\n BHALYANI, DISTRICT KULLU, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL BADGRAN.\n\n 41. RAJESH THAKUR, S/O SH. JAI CHAND, AGED 45,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHUTHI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH\n\n\n\n\n .\n SCHOOL BHUMTEER.\n\n\n\n\n\n 42. SANJAY KUMAR, S/O SH. DINE RAM, AGED 46 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE JATHANI, P.0. BHALYANI,\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL SHAT.\n\n 43. PREMA KUMARI, D/O SH. DOLE RAM, AGE 35 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION SHASTRI, R/O VILLAGE TEEL P.O. BRADHA,\n DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL BENCHI.\n\n 44. DALIP KUMAR S/O NIHAL SINGH, AGED 35, OCCUPATION\n DM, R/O VILLAGE DICKRIYUND, P.O. BHANJRARU, TEHSIL\n\n CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. MODEL SR. SEC. SCHOOL TISSA.\n\n 45. DHARAM SINGH, S/O MOTI RAM, AGE 37 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE KATHUWAD, BAGHEIGARH,\n TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. P.O. PRESENTLY\n\n\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL SAROL.\n\n 46. NURDH RAM, S/O PARSHOTAM, AGED OCCUPATION PET,\n R/O VILLAGE AND TIKRIGARH, TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC.\n SCHOOL LOH 39 YEARS, POST OFFICE TIKRI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 47. GIAN CHAND S/O AMI CHAND, AGED 40 YEARS,\n OCCUPATIONDM, R/O VILLAGE DOHRI, 2.0. CHANJU, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, E.2. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL CHANJU.\n\n 48. PRAHLAD RAM S/O SH. CHATAR SINGH, AGED 39\n YEARS,OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE KUNDA, P.O.DEHRA,\n TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, B.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL DHAR U/C GSSS CHANJU.\n\n 49. RAMESH CHAND, S/O SH. KARAM CHAND, AGE 47\n YEARS, OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE SAPROT P/O THANEL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 262\n\n\n KOTHI, TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBGRAM\n U/C GSSS JHAJHA-KOTHI.\n\n 50. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O RAJ MOHD, OCCUPATION DM, 2/0\n VILLAGE GADIYASER, P.O. KHUSHNAGRI, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT.\n\n\n\n\n\n MIDDLE SCHOOL DEHGRAM U/C GSSS JHAJJA-KOTHI\n\n 51. PARMA DEVI W/O DINESH KUMAR, OCCUPATION PET,\n 3/0 VILLAGE MOHAL, P.O. CHANDI (LAROG), TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR.\n SEC. SCHOOL KHUSH NAGARI.\n\n 52. CHET SINGH, S/O SH. PARAS RAM, OCCUPATION PET,\n 3/0 VILLAGE KILWALA P.O. THALLI, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT.\n MIDDLE SCHOOL NERA U/C GSSS TISSA.\n\n 53. KARAM SINGH, S/O GIAN CHAND, AGED 42 YEARS,\n\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE MALOON, 2/0 DIYOLA,\n TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHANBA, E.P. PRESENTLY\n\n POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL GHARSANI U/C\n GSSSLUDDU.\n\n 54. UMESH SHARMA S/O GIRIJ SHARMA, AGED 37 YEARS,\n\n\n OCCUPATION D.M., R/O VILLAGE SUNGLA, P.O. BAROR,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GSSS JADERA, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n 55. VIJAY SINGH, S/O JOGINDER SINGH, AGED 36 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION D.M., R/O VILLAGE BHANOTA, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT CHANBA, H.P.. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS SARU\n U/C GSSS UDAIPUR, CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 56. RAKESH KUMAR, S/O RAM LAL. AGED 37 OCCUPATION\n 0.7 R/O VILLAGE BHATIYIND, PALHUIN, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, P.O. S.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GES\n KALOTA, DISTRICT CHANBA, H.P.\n\n 57. TIALK RAJ, S/O ROSHIYAR RAM, AGE 37 YEARS.\n OCCUPATION D.M., R/O VILLAGE DHAR P.O. DHADHA. TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT CHANBA, E.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS\n PARIHAR, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 263\n\n\n 58. DINESH KUMAR, S/O PARAS RAM, AGED 35 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION OT, R/O VILLAGE CHAKROTHA, 2.0. JHULARA,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GMS NAGHUIEN U/C GSSS PARIHAR, CHAMBA.\n\n 59. RINKU RAM, S/O KARAM CHAND, AGED 36 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n .\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOHLARI,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GSSS KOHLARI, CHAMBA.\n\n 60. SURESH KUMAR, S/O CHAIN LAL, AGE 39 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION OT, R/O VILLAGE MAUWA, P.O. KIANI, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTY POSTED AT GMS\n MAUWA U/C GSSS KIANI, CHAMBA.\n\n 61. POOJA D/O SURINDER KUMAR, AGO 38 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION OT, R/O VILLAGE JANNA, P.0. THAKRI MATHI,\n TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GMS TIKKRI U/C GMSSS SAHO, DISTRICT\n CHMABA.\n\n 62. CHAIN LAL, S/O DHARAM CHAND, AGED 38,\n\n OCCUPATION OT, R/O VILLAGE DIND, P.O. LIGGA, TEHSIL\n SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n TIKROO, CHAMBA.\n\n\n 63. RAJINDER KUMAR, S/O SH. AMAR SINGH, AGE 42,\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE GHARI, P.0. TIKKRU, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS\n SIULA U/C GSSS LIGGA, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n 64. RANJHA RAM, S/O SH. BRATIA RAM AGE 40\n\n\n\n\n\n YEARS,OCCUPATION C&V (DM), R/O VILLAGE KHALAILI, P.O.\n KHANI, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GMS PENJSEI U/C GSSS BHARMOUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 65. SHAKTI PRASAD, S/O SH NAND LAL, AGE 40,\n OCCUPATION C&V (DM), R/O VILLAGE KHALAILI, P.O. KHANI,\n TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GHS NAYAGRAM, CHAMBA.\n\n 66. ROOP SINGH S/O SH MOUJA RAM, AGE 38, OCCUPATION\n C&V (DM), R/O VILLAGE GOSAN, P.O. AND TEHSIL BHARMOUR,\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GRS SATHLI, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 264\n\n\n\n 67. SURESH KUMAR, S/O PURAN CHAND, AGED 36 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION C&V (DM), R/O VILLAGE BRAHMANI, P.O. KHANI,\n TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GSSS BHARMOUR.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 68. JAGDISH CHAND, S/O JALAM RAM, AGED 42 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION C&V (DM), R/O VILLAGE BRAHMANI, P.O. KHANI,\n TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GSSS BHARMOUR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 69. VIJAY SINGH, S/O DHANI RAM, AGED 43\n YEARS,OCCUPATION C&V (DM), R/O VILLAGE AND POST\n OFFICE KHANI, DISTICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED\n AT GMS LAHAL U/C GSSS KHANI.\n\n\n\n\n\n 70. KIRTI THAKUR W/O SH PAWAN KUMAR, AGED 30,\n OCCUPATION C&V (DM), R/O VILLAGE LUNI P.0, GHARER,\n TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GMS PANJSSEL U/C GSSS BHARMOUR.\\n\n 71. PARSHOTAM DASS S/O SH DHARAM DASS, AGED 41\n\n YEARS, OCCUPATION C&V (PET), R/O VILLAGE LUNA, P.O.\n AURA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS\n AURA.\n\n\n 72. POOJA DEVI, W/O SH RAJNISH KUMAR, AGED 38,\n OCCUPATION C&V (DM), VILLAGE CHATRAN, P.0.\n AURA,TEHSIL BHARMOUR. CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED ATGHS DHANEI U/C GSSS RAILA.\n\n\n\n\n 73. SIKANDAR MOHAMMAD 8/0 SHAREEF MOHD., AGED 42,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE RAILLA, P.O. CHARORI,\n TEHSIL CHURAH, CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS\n RAILLA CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 74. MANOJ KUMAR S/O DHARAM CHAND AGED 34,\n OCCUPATION DM, R/O VILLAGE MOUWA, P.O KANDLA, TEHSIL\n & DISTRICT CHAMBA, H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GSSS\n BAROUR.\n\n 75. LALIT KUMAR S/O BALDEV RAJ AGED 35, OCCUPATION\n DM, R/O VILLAGE MOUWA, P.0 KANDLA, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n H.P. PRESNTLY POSTED AT GHS KILOD U/C GSSS KIHAR.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 265\n\n\n 76. BANITA PATIYAL, D/O DHARAM SINGH AGED\n OCCUPATION SHASTRI OT, R/O VILLAGE MOHALLA 42,\n CHAUNTRA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GMS DHAROG U/C GSSS CHAMBA.\n\n 77. DEEPALI CHAUHAN, D/O ARVIND SINGH AGED 37 YEARS\n\n\n\n\n .\n OCCUPATION OT, R/O VILLAGE DANOON P.O. SUNDLA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS\n SAAL U/C GSSS CHAKLOO.\\n\n 78. SARITA DEVI D/O SUNEETU RAM AGED 37, OCCUPATION\n\n\n\n\n\n OT, R/O VILLAGE DANOON P.O. SUNDLA, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS JULAKARI\n U/C GBSSS CHAMBA.\n\n 79. RAJINDER KUMAR, 5/0 PRATAPU AGE 41, OCCUPATION\n\n\n\n\n\n PET R/O VILLAGE BIHALI, P.O. SUNDIA, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GS BIHALI U/C\n GSSS SUNDLA r\n 80. LALIT BALA, D/O PIAR SINGH AGE 39 OCCUPAION 07,\n R/O VILLAGE TIKRI, P.O. PUKHRI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT CATS TIKRI U/C GSSS\n SANDHI.\n\n 81. BHILO RAM S/O NUDHU RAM, AGED 37, OCCUPATION\n\n\n PET, R/O VILLAGE GHARGRAN P.0. SIIRKUND, TEHSIL AND\n CHAMBA. H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT CHS KHAWAH U/C\n GSSS KUTHER.\n\n\n\n\n 82. SHAM LAL S/0 BHAGAT RAM AGED 34 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION OT, R/O VILLAGE SAPROTH P.0. THANEI KOTHI\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GM AULLA U/C GOSS BEI KOTHI, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 83. GANESH KUMAR S/0 NAX BINGH AGE 39 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION 0.T., R/O VPO KAINI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMSSS TIESA,\n CHAMBA.\n\n 84. GVASKAR KUMAR, S/O SHURDARSHAN KUMAR, AGE 39,\n OCCUPATION DM,, R/O VILLAGE MOUWS P.0, KIANI TOHAIL\n AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMB\n KARORI U/C ASSS PUKHRI, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 266\n\n\n\n 85. PARVEEN KUMAR S/0 DIWAN CHAND, AGED 40,\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O VILLAGE DARKOTI P.O. PUKHRI\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GMS KARORI DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 86. RAJ KUMAR S/O BALDEV RAJ AGE 37, OCCUPATION DM,\n\n\n\n\n\n R/O VILLAGE UKHALU P.0. KOTI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMB BHARDAR U/C\n ASSS CHANDI, CHAMBA, H. P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 87. GAJINDER SINGH S/0 SH AMAR SINGH AGE 41,\n OCCUPATION DRAWING MASTER, R/O VILLAGE AND POST\n OFFICE KIHAR, TEHSIL SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMSS SCHOOL DAND.\n\n\n\n\n\n 88. HANS RAJ S/O SH. BAINAU RAM AGE 44 OCCUPATION\n PET, R/O VILLAGE SHALDU, P.O. KIHAR TEHSILSALOONI\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMSS\n SCHOOL DAND.\n\n 89. KEWAL RAJ S/O SHGIAN CHAND AGE 44, OCCUPATION\n\n OT, R/O VILLAGE DANUN, P.O. SUNDLA, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH\n SCHOOL SURGANI.\n\n\n 90. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SOBHIYA RAM AGED 44 YEARS,\n OCCUPATION OT, R/O VILLAGE MATTI P.O THAKKAR MATTI,\n TEHSIL SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P., PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL PUKHRI.\n\n\n\n\n 91. RAMESH KUMAR S/O BODH RAM AGE 41 YEARS,\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION PET, R/O MANDYOT P.O. LAHRA TEHSIL\n SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL LAHRA.\n\n\n\n\n\n 92. BEENA KUMARI W/O SH. VIKASH SINGH, YEARS,\n OCCUPATION DRAWING MASTER, R/O VILLAGE DIGORI, AGE\n 37 P.O SANGHNI TEHSIL SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL SANGHNI.\n\n 93. RAKESH KUMAR S/O SH MELA RAM AGE 37,\n OCCUPATION 0.T. R/O VILLAGE SIDHOT P.O. HIMGIRI, TEHSIL\n SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GMS KHANDYARU U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL HIMGIRI.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 267\n\n\n\n 94. ANIL KUMAR S/O SH. BELI RAM AGED 46, OCCUPATION\n PET, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LIGGA, TEHSIL SALOONI\n DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GMS SIULA\n U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL LIGGA.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 95. SANJU DEVI D/O MUSADDI RAM AGED 45 YEARS\n\n\n\n\n\n OCCUPATION OT, R/O VILLAGE LAI P.O. SUNDLA TEHSIL\n SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA H. P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GMS KILOD-1 U/C GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL KIHAR.\n\n\n\n\n\n 96. AJAY SHARMA S/O SHASHI KUMAR AGED 31 YEARS\n OCCUPATION ART & CRAFT TEACHER R/O VILLAGE DALAGI,\n P.O. BALT, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI H.P.\n ....PETITIONERS.\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND r\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n SECRETARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA-2, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H.P.\n\n\n 3. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H.P.\n ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n (BY. SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n SH.ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)\n\n 27. CWP NO. 1414 OF 2021.\n\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN\n\n 1. SH. PREM LAMO, S/O SH. BALA RAM, AGED ABOUT 44\n YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MASTOT, P.O KALOTI, TEHSIL\n CHIRGSON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING\n AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SARIBASA, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 268\n\n\n 2. SH. JEEWAN SINGH, S/O SH. KUNDAN SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE KALOTI, TEHSIL PEKHA, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PEKHA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n .\n 3. MS. ASHA KUMARI, D/O SH. DALIP SINGH THAKUR, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE TIKKARI, P.O TIKKARI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (SCHOOL NEW) (HINDI) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL PEKHA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. SH. PARMESH KUMAR, S/O SH. JEHAR SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE DALI,P.O MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER.\n (ENGLISH) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n SARIBASA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 5. SH. OM PRAKASH, S/O SH. BALDEV SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n RAJOUR, P.O PANGWALA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT\n\n CHAMBA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (SCHOOL\n NEW) (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 6. SH. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O SH. PRAKASH CHAND, R/O\n VILLAGE BARI, PO & TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (POLITICAL\n SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n 7. SH. PRITAM CHAND, S/O SH. JAISHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n & POST OFFICE CHANHOTA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAMBA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (COMMERCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 8. MS. USHA KUMARI, D/O SH. SURENDER KUMAR, R/O\n VILLAGE SANGRAT, PO CHHACTRARI, TEHSIL BHARMOUR,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, (NP) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n POOLAN, DISTRICT CHAMBA, (H.P.).\n\n 9. SH. SONU RAM, S/O SH. AAPTU, R/O VILLAGE MANDU,\n P.O SERIKAO, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER. (HISTORY) AT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 269\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL POOLAN,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, (H.P.)\n\n 10. SH. PAWAN KUMAR, S/O SH. KRISHAN CHAND, R/O\n VILLAGE POOLAN, P.O SIRDI, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n .\n (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GSSS POOLAN, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.).\n\n 11. SH. KULBHUSHAN, S/O SH. KEEMAT RAM, R/O VPO\n GHARAD, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (ECONOMICS) AT GSSS\n BATOL, DISTRICT CHAMBA, (H.P.)\n\n 12. SMT. MONIKA, W/O SH. HARDIP SINGH, R/O WARD NO.-\n 3, VILLAGE & POST OFFICE SANOLI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT UNA,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (ENGLISH) AT\n G(G)SSS SANTOKHGARH, DISTRICT UNA, (H.P.)\n\n 13. SMT. DIKSHA THAKUR, W/O SH. SAURABH KEPRATE,\n\n R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE PURAG, TEHSIL KOTKHAI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n\n (POLITICAL SCIENCE.) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GUMMA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 14. SH. JEEVAN SINGH, S/O SH. MOTI RAM, R/O VPO SACH,\n\n\n TEHSIL PANGI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS LECTURER (GEOGRAPHY) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SACH RANGI DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n 15. SMT. PAYNEET, W/O SH. SANJEEV THAKUR, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n AMRAVATI COMPLEX LAVIGHAT (SOLAN). DISTRICT SOLAN,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (POLITICAL\n SCIENCE) (SCHOOL NEW) AT GSSS KOTHI DEORA, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SOLAN. (H.P.)\n\n 16. SH. NAVJEEVAN NEGI, S/O SH. BHIM BHAGAT, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE SANGLA, TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ECONOMICS) (SCHOOL NEW) AT GSSS SANGLA, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR. (H.P.)\n\n 17. MS. PREM LATA, D/O SH. RAM SAIN NEGI, R/O VILLAGE\n & POST OFFICE TRANDA, TEHSIL NICHAR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 270\n\n\n KINNAUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ENGLISH) (SCHOOL NEW) AT GSSS POOH, DISTRICT KINNAUR,\n (H.P.)\n\n 18. SH. DIWAN CHAND, S/O SH. MOOL RAJ. R/O VILLAGE\n THEDA, P.O TAKLECH, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (HINDI) AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NARAIN,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 19. SMT. BIMLA DEVI, W/O SH. RAKESH, R/O VILLAGE PALI,\n\n\n\n\n\n P.O SHARVI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (ECONOMICS) (SCHOOL\n NEW) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ARSU,\n DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 20. SH. POTAM SINGH, S/O SH. CHHERING NARBU, R/O\n VILLAGE KANAM, P.O KANAM, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n DANSA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P)\n\n 21. SMT. SWARAN LATA, W/O SH. KAMAL KUMAR, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE SHOLI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ENGLISH) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n SHOLI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 22. SMT. SAROJ DEVI, W/O SH. ASHOK KUMAR, R/O\n VILLAGE & POSTOFFICE SHOLI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (COMMERCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n SHOLI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 23. SH. RAMAN, S/O SH. DHANI RAM, R/O VPO SHOLI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING\n AS LECTURER (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHOLI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 24. SH. DEVINDER SINGH HASTA, S/O SH. KESAR SINGH\n HASTA, R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE MASHONOO, TEHSIL\n RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n LECTURER (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL KINU, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 271\n\n\n 25. SH. KHELA RAM, S/O SH. SUKH DEV, R/O VILLAGE\n RANDAL, P.O RAMPUR, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (HISTORY) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DANSA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n .\n 26. SH. VIJAY SINGH, S/O SH. DIWAN CHAND, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n SHAHA, P.O DOFDA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (ECONOMICS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SARAHAN,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 27. SH. JAI PRAKASH, S/O SH. KESHAV RAM, R/O VILLAGE &\n POST OFFICE LABANA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (MATH.) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SARAHAN,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 28. SMT. LEELA LARZOO, W/O SH. BIHARI LARZOO, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE BONDA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (COMMERCE) AT GSSS SARAHAN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 29. SH. DARSHAN DASS, S/O SH. TARA CHAND, R/O VILLAGE\n HUMKU, P.O SARGA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (HISTORY) AT\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAMEJ,\n DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.)\n\n 30. SMT. SHAILJA KUMARI, W/O SH. SURESH KUMAR, R/O\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KHANORTU, P.O TAKLECH, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n\n (COMMERCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n NOGLI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 31. SH. DEVINDER KUMAR, S/O SH. RAM SINGH CHAGAIN,\n R/O VPO JEORI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (MATH.) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL JEORI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 32. SH. JAI CHAND, S/O SH. PREM KUMAR SONI, R/O VPO\n BADHAL, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (BIOLOGY) AT GSSS\n JEORI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 272\n\n\n\n 33. SMT. BIPA VERMA, W/O SH. SANDEEP KUMAR, R/O\n VILLAGE BAGHARI, P.O BHUTTI, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ENGLISH) AT GSSS NANJ, DISTRICT MANDI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n .\n 34. DR. ADITI GULERI, D/O SH. PRATYOOSH GULERI, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n NEAR NAAM ART GALLERY VILLAGE BAGHANI, P.O SIDHBARI,\n TEHSIL DHARAMSHALA, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (HINDI) (SCHOOL NEW)\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GHANIARA,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 35. MS. PUNAM DHIMAN, D/O SH. KISHORI LAL DHIMAN, R/O\n WARD NO-14 VPO DARI, TEHSIL DHARAMSHALA, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n\n (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL DARI, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 36. SH. SANJEEV CHAUHAN, S/O SH. SHASHI RAM CHAUHAN,\n\n R/O VILLAGE MAJGHOAN, P.O SHAHDHAR, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n\n (CHEMISTRY.) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL JEORI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 37. SH. KAMAL NAIN AWASTHI, S/O SH. DAULAT RAM, R/O\n\n\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE LAHAT, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n LECTURER (HISTORY) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL LAHAT, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n 38. SH. AJAY MEHRA, S/O SH. PRITAM CHAND, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n KACHHAL JAGGIAN, P.O & TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (MATH.)\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 39. SH. RAJEEV, S/O SH. PRATAP CHAND, R/O VILLAGE\n KACHHAL BHANDARIAN, P.O & TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n LECTURER (BIOLOGY) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL ALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 40. MS. MANITA KUMARI, D/O SH. HANS RAJ, R/O VILLAGE &\n POST OFFICE ALAMPUR, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 273\n\n\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ENGLISH) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n ALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 41. SH. AVATAR CHAND, S/O SH. BALDEV RAJ, R/O VILLAGE\n & POST OFFICE KHERA, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n\n (COMMERCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KHERA, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 42. MS. SUDHA KUMARI, D/O SH. VIDYA SAGAR, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n & POST OFFICE KHERA, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KHERA, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 43. SH. VIKAS MISHRA, S/O SH. VINOD KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE\n GANDER, P.O MARERA, SUB TEHSIL ALAMPUR, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ENGLISH) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n GANDER, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 44. SH. KUSHAL THAKUR, S/O SH. NARENDER KUMAR, R/O\n VILLAGE CHANTHWA, P.O TANDI, TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT\n KULLU, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (MATH) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NITHER,\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.)\n\n 45. SMT. POONAM THAKUR, W/O SH. SANDEEP VERMA, R/O\n VILLAGE JANU, P.O DHAMENDRI, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL SHIMLA, (H.P.) DUBLOO, DISTRICT\n\n 46. SH. LOBRANG NAMGIAL, S/O SH. TASHI CHHERING, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE CHICHAM, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KAZA, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 47. SH. HISHEY BUTITH, S/O SH. TANZIN ANGDUL, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL &\n SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (POLITICAL\n SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KAZA, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 274\n\n\n\n 48. SH. GAMPO CHHERING, S/O SH. DORJE NAMGIAL, R/O\n VILLAGE CHICHAM, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (HISTORY) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KIBBER, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 49. SH. CHHERING PA, S/O SH. RINGZIN, R/O VILLAGE LARI,\n P.O TABO, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KIBBER,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 50. SH. CHHERING NORBU, S/O SH. CHHERING DORJE, R/O\n VILLAGE CHICHAM, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n\n (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n KIBBER, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 51. SH. ANGDUI NORBU, S/O SH. CHHERING CHHODA, R/O\n\n VPO KAZA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (ENGLISH) AT\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KIBBER,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 52. SUSHEELA KUMARI, D/O SH. URGAIN DORJE, R/O VPO\n\n\n GUE, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (HISTORY) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOSGAR,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n 53. SH. SEETA RAM, S/O SH. BASTI RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n PANJOR, P.O HALLAN, TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (HINDI) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GATTA\n\n\n\n\n\n MANDWATCH, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 54. SMT. SHALINI, W/O SH. GAGAN SHARMA, R/O AMAR\n NIWAS, PUCCK TANK NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (CHEMISTRY) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GATTA\n TRILOKPUR, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 55. SMT. MADHURI SHARMA, D/O SH. VINOD SHARMA, R/O\n VILLAGE SHILLI, P.O SHILLI SANARI, TEHSIL NAHAN,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 275\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.) RAMA, DISTRICT PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS LECTURER (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SIRMOUR, (H.P.).\n\n 56. SHRI LAL SINGH, S/O SHRI BALI RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n GEHAL, PO KORAG, TEHSIL SANGRAH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR\n\n\n\n\n .\n (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER ENGLISH IN\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HARIPUR DHAR,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR (H.P.).\n\n 57. SMT. NISHA KUMARI, W/O SH. DIWALAR SINGH, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE GIAN KOT, P.O BHUJJAL, TEHSIL RAJGARH,\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n LECTURER (HISTORY) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KOTLA BAROG, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 58. SH. GURDEV SINGH, S/O SH. BAL KISHAN, R/O VILLAGE\n BARAWALA, P.O K.W.BHOOD, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT\n SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n SCHOOL BHOOD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 59. SH. HARI KRISHAN, S/O SH. SUNDER DEV, R/O VPO\n MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT\n GSSS MASLI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n 60. SH. VINOD KUMAR, S/O SH. BABU RAM, R/O VILLAGE &\n POST OFFICE MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (HISTORY) AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MASLI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 61. SH. RAINJER LAL, S/O SH. SADH RAM R/O VILLAGE &\n POST OFFICE MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (ECONOMICS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MASLI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 62. MS. SUMITA KHALASTA, D/O SH. KARAM SINGH\n KHALASTA, R/O VILLAGE KHAROT, P.O MASLI, TEHSIL\n CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING\n AS LECTURER (GEOGRAPHY) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL JANGLA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 276\n\n\n 63. MS. PUSHAP LATA, D/O SH. KISHOR KRISHAN SHARMA,\n R/O VILLAGE TAPROG, P.O PAHAL, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (MUSIC)\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SHOGHI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n .\n 64. MS. SANJANA KUMARI, D/O SH. SWARUPA NAND SHARMA,\n\n\n\n\n\n R/O VILLAGE PARSA, P.O LOWER KOTI, TEHSIL ROHRU,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n SAMOLI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 65. MS. LATA, D/O SH. AJAY KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE\n CHAKRIYANA, P.O PALANDER, TEHSIL SUJANPUR, DISTRICT\n HAMIRPUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (HINDI) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n\n\n\n PAPLAH, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 66. SH. DESH RAJ, S/O SH. DINA NATH, R/O VILLAGE NADAIL,\n P.O ROHAN, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (COMMERCE) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PAPLAH,\n\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 67. SH. RAJEEV KUMAR, S/O LATE SH. BRATU RAM, R/O\n VILLAGE BALUHI, P.O KHERA, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT\n\n\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (COMMERCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n PAPLAH, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n 68. SH. GAJINDER SINGH, S/O LATE SH. MAN SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE PAPLAH, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n LECTURER (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PAPLAH, DISTRICT 1 KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 69, SH. KASHMIR SINGH, S/O SH. DALIP SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n BANDAHU, P.O BANDAHU, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (ENGLISH) AT GOVERNMENT TO REG SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KAUNA, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 70. SH. SANJEEV KUMAR, S/O LATE SH. MAST RAM, R/O\n VILLAGE DRIDH, P.O SANHOON, TEHSIL THURAL, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 277\n\n\n (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SANHOON, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 71. SH. JASWANT SINGH RANA, S/O LATE SH. DHANI RAM\n RANA, R/O VILLAGE UPPER CHULA, P.O BAIRGHAT, TEHSIL\n THURAL, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n\n\n\n\n .\n LECTURER (ECONOMICS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LAHRU, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 72. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR S/O SHRI TASHI CHERING, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE POOH, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n KINNAUR. PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (ENGLISH) IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL POOH, TEHSIL\n POOH, DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n 73. MS. SONAM DEVI D/O SHRI PRAKASH CHANDER, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE POOH, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER HINDI\n IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL POOH, TEHSIL\n POOH, DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n 74. SHRI THAKUR SINGH, S/O SHRI RIGZIN DUDUL, R/O\n\n VILLAGE CHULING, PO HANGO, SUB-TEHSIL HANGRANG,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n LECTURER POLITICAL SCIENCE IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANGO, DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n\n\n 75. SMT. ANJANA W/O SHRI BALWANT PRIMTA, R/O VILLAGE\n & POST OFFICE BAMTA, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA\n (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER COMMERCE IN\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BYCHARI,\n TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 76. SHRI SURJIT KUMAR S/O SHRI THAKUR DASSS, R/O\n VILLAGE GURALA, PO LAG, TEHSIL DADA SIBA, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n KANGRA (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER SCHOOL\n ENGLISH IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n BATHRA, TEHSIL DADA SIBAM DISTRICT KANGRA (H.P.).\n\n 77. MS. SUMAN MANTA, W/O SHIR VINOD MANTA, R/O\n MADARLI (82), ROHRU, TEHSIL ROHRU, DISTRICT SHIMLA\n (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (CHEMISTRY) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMARSAIN,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 278\n\n\n 78. SHRI DEVINDER KUMAR JHAUTA, S/O SHRI KRISHAN\n CHAND JHAUTA, VILLAGE SAINJH, PO PANDRANU, TEHSIL\n JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n LECTURER (POLITICAL SCIENCE) IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL PANDRANU, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 79. SMT. VEENA DEVI, W/O SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA, R/O\n VILLAGE GHAROT POST OFFICE DHARARA, DISTRICT SHIMLA\n (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER HINDI IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BALSA,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.).\n\n 80. SMT. ARCHANA DEVI W/O SHRI SURENDER SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE DIYANDLI, POST OFFICE & TEHSIL NERWA, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER HISTORY\n\n\n\n\n\n IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RINJAT,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.).\n\n 81. SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O SHRI MELA RAM SHARMA,\n\n R/O VILLAGE KHADDAR, POST OFFICE NAKNIRAPUL, TEHSIL\n CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n\n LECTURER HINDI IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL RINJAT, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.).\n\n 82. SMT. VIDYA LAXMI, W/O SHRI VIDYA CHAND, R/O\n\n\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE KARLA, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER\n (HISTORY) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n NARAG, DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n 83. SMT. KAVITA SHARMA, D/O SHRI KRISHAN CHAND, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE KUNIHAR, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (PHYSICS) IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS)\n\n\n\n\n\n KUNIHAR, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.).\n\n 84. SMT. REETA VERMA, D/O SHRI KIRPA RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n UCHA GAON, PO KUNIHAR, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (ENGLISH) IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS)\n KUNIHAR, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.).\n\n 85. SH. SATISH KUMAR, S/O SHRI KISHAN CHAND, R/O\n VILLAGE LOWER BADHERA, TEHSIL HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 279\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (PHYSICS) IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KUTHAR,\n DISTRICT SOLAN (H.P.).\n\n 86. MS. SHEETAL KUMARI, W/O SHRI DEINESH KUMARI\n TANGRAIK, R/O VILLAGE DIVANDALI, PO NERWA, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n .\n NERWA, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n\n\n\n\n\n LECTURER (MUSIC) IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL KADAOUR, DISTRICT SOLAN (H.P.).\n .....PETITIONERS.\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n\n\n\n\n\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 171002.\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n\n 28. CWP NO. 1975 OF 2021.\n\n BETWEEN\n\n\n\n\n 1. SH. THAKAR SINGH, S/O SH. THAPE RAM, AGED YEARS,\n R/O VILLAGE THATTA, P.O GHANIAR, TEHSIL BALICHOWKI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS P.E.T AT\n GSSS GHANIAR, DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. SH. THAKAR SINGH, S/O SH. TEK SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n RANCHADHAR, P.O P.O GHANIAR, TEHSIL BALICHOWKI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS P.E.T AT\n GMS SHIDHARI U/C GSSS GHANIAR, DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.).\n\n 3. SH. HARBANSH KUMAR, S/O SH. DINE RAM, R/O\n VILLAGE THATTA, P.O GHANIAR, TEHSIL BALICHOWKI,\n DISTRICT MANDI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS P.E.T AT\n GMS KATWANOO U/C GSSS GHANIAR, DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 280\n\n\n 4. SMT. DHANEWSHWARI DEVI, W/O SH. HARBANSH\n KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE THATTA, P.O GHANIAR, TEHSIL\n BALICHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING\n AS DM AT GSSS BALICHOWKI, DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.).\n\n 5. SH. RAKESH KUMAR, S/O SH. HARI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n .\n GHUMARDA, P.O KUNNU, TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS P.E.T AT GHS GARLOG U/C\n GSSS SOHAL, DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.).\n\n 6. SH. SANDEEP KUMAR, S/O SH. BHOOP SINGH, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE BALARA, P.O SHARGAON, TEHSIL RAJGARH,\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT\n GHS TIKKARI U/C GSSS GAURA, DISTRICT SOLAN (H.P).\n\n 7. SH. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O SH. SUKH RAM, R/O VPO DEOTHI\n\n\n\n\n\n MAJHGAON, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKINGAS P.E.T AT GHS TIKKARI U/C AGSSS\n GAURA, DISTRICT SOLAN (H.P).\n\n 8. SMT. MAMTA KUMARI, W/O SH. LEKH RAJ, R/O VILLAGE\n CHAMIAN, P.O JUBBER, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN,\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS P.E.T AT GSSS KASAULI,\n DISTRICT SOLAN (H.P).\n 9. SH. GANESH DUTT, S/O SH. SURJAN SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE DHAGOLI, P.O KANTHALI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI\n AT GSSS MASLI, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 10. SH. SURVINDER SHARMA, S/O SH. PRATAP SINGH, R/O\n\n\n\n\n VPO MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS MASLI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICTSHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 11. SH. NARENDER SINGH, S/O SH. BHAJAN DASS,\n\n\n\n\n\n R/OVILLAGE DALI, P.O MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS SHALOT\n U/C GSSS MASLI, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 12. SARITA DEVI, D/O SHALIG RAM, R/O VPO MASLI, TEHSIL\n CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING\n AS SHASHTRI AT GMS BETYANI U/C GSSS GAONSARI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 281\n\n\n 13. SH. KAPIL DEV VERMA, S/O SH. THAKUR DASS VERMA,\n R/O VILLAGE JALAIDHAR, P.O GHAINI, TEHSIL SUNNI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS P.E.T AT\n GSSS GHAINI, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 14. SH. YUGAL KISHORE, S/O SH. TEK CHAND, R/OVILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n .\n JALAG, P.O KHATNOL, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS THAILA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 15. SH. KHUSHI RAM, S/O SH. RAM DASS, R/OVILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n KANDI, P.O. DHARMPUR, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS OT SHASTRI AT GMS\n DANDIBAG, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 16. MONIKA SHARMA, D/O SH. HUKAM CHAND, R/OVILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n GHARYANA, P.O SUNNI, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS CHABA, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA (H.P).r\n 17. SMT. PRAVEEN SITO, W/O SH. GOBIND SINGH,\n R/OVILLAGE DOBHA, P.O ARSU, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT\n\n KULLU, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS ARSU,\n DISTRICT KULLU (H.P).\n\n 18. SH. KAMAL SHARMA, S/O SH. HARI KRISHAN, R/OVPO\n\n\n ARSU, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS SHASTRI AT GSSS ARSU, DISTRICT KULLU (H.P).\n\n 19. SH. YASH PAUL, S/O SH. HARI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n BAKHUN, P.O DUHARA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT\n KULLU, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING P.E.T. AT GHS DUHARA,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT KULLU (H.P).\n\n 20. SH. LOK RAJ, S/O SH. SURAT RAM, R/OVILLAGE SUNAIR,\n\n\n\n\n\n P.O.NISHANI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING SHASTRI AT GHS KUSHWA, DISTRICT\n KULLU (H.P).\n\n 21. SMT. SHANTA DEVI, W/O SH. RAJESH KUMAR, R/O VPO\n KOTHI, TEHSIL AANI, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING DM AT GMS NAGAN, DISTRICT KULLU (H.P).\n\n 22. SH. DWIVED KUMAR, S/O SH. MOHAR SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE LAPHALI, P.O JAON, TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT KULLU,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 282\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING P.E.T. AT GSSS LADHAGI,\n DISTRICT KULLU (H.P).\n\n 23. SH. SUSHIL KUMAR, S/O SH. SUDARSHAN DEV,\n R/OVILLAGE RANVI, P.O SARAHAN, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI\n\n\n\n\n .\n AT GSSS SARAHAN, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n\n 24. SMT. KAUSHLYA DEVI, D/O SH. SOHAN LAL, R/O VPO\n SARAHAN, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GSSS SARAHAN,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 25. SH. GAUTAM SHARMA, S/O SH. LEKH RAJ SHARMA,\n R/OVILLAGE RANVI, P.O SARAHAN, TEHSIL RAMPUR, SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GMS RANGORI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA\n\n 26. SH. RAVI KANT, S/O SH. RAJINDER SINGH, R/OVPO\n DEOTHI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) ISTRA\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS PATAINA, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 27. SH. DALIP SINGH, S/O SH. PORSHOTTAM SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE KUHAL, P.O DEOTHI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GHS KUHAL,\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 28. SH. RAJESH KUMAR, S/O SH. DEVI DASS, R/O VILLAGE\n THALA, P.O MUNISH BAHLI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS\n BARKAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n\n 29. SH. VINOD KUMAR, S/O SH. SHOBHA RAM, R/O VPO SHAH,\n TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n WORKING AS DM AT GHS JHULI-KOT, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 30. SH. BAHADUR SINGH, S/O SH. DURGA SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE KUHAL, PO DEOTHI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS KUHAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 31. SH. RAKESH KUMAR, S/O SH. KRISHAN KUMAR, R/O VPO\n SHINGLA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 283\n\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GSSS SHINGLA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 32. SH. VIRENDER SINGH, S/O SH. PADAM DASS, R/O VILLAGE\n KUKHI, P.O DARKALI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS KUKHI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n\n 33. SH. KULDEEP PRAKASH, S/O SH. HARI DASS, R/O\n VILLAGE NAINI, P.O JEORI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GSSS\n\n\n\n\n\n BADHAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 34. SH. PURSHOTAM DASS, S/O SH. ROOP DASS, R/O VILLAGE\n BHAGAWAT, P.O KINOO, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GHS KIYAO, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 35. SH. JASWANT SINGH, S/O SH. GOPAL SINGH, R/O VPO\n MUNISH, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS URMAN, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 36. SH. VIPAN SINGH, S/O SH. CHUNJU RAM, R/O VPO DOFDA,\n TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS DM AT GMS KARTOT, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n\n\n 37. SH. BALWANT SINGH, S/O SH. BALVIR SINGH, R/O VPO\n MUSHNOO, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS RANGORI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n\n 38. SARITA DEVI, D/O SH. BALVIR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n PITHVI, P.O KINOO, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS RUNPU, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 39. SH. JAGDISH KUMAR, S/O SH. VEER SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n KANDRI, P.O FANCHA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS FANCHA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 40. SH. PRAMOD KUMAR, S/O SH. ROSHAN LAL, R/O VPO\n MASHNOO, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 284\n\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS RANGORI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 41. SH. DESH GAURAV, S/O SH. ROSHAN LAL, R/O VPO\n MASHNOO, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS MAGHARA, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n\n 42. SH. DEVI SINGH, S/O SH. RAM, R/O VILLAGE KOTI, P.O\n DHAR GAURA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS KOTI-KAPTI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 43. SH. KANWAR SINGH, S/O SH. RAM SINGH, R/O VPO\n BARACH, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GSSS BARACH, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 44. SH. PAWAN KUMAR, S/O SH. RAMDYAL, R/O VILLAGE\n TUTTO, P.O DELATH, TEHSIL NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GSSS BARACH,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 45. SH. SUSHIL KUMAR, S/O SH. SARJAN DASS, R/O VILLAGE\n SERI MAJHALI, P.O TAKLECH, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS RADOLI,\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 46. SH. KAMLESH KUMAR, S/O SH. PURAV DEV, R/O VILLAGE\n KUNNI, P.O SHAHDHAR, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GMS DARSHAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n\n 47. SH. GOPAL, S/O SH. SHAUNU RAM, R/O VPO SHINGLA,\n TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GSSS (BOYS) RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 48. SH. HEMRAJ SHARMA, S/O SH. DWARKA DASS, R/O\n VILLAGE PANOLI, P.O DANSA, TEHSIL RAMPUR,\n DISTRICTSHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS\n BHADHAWALI, DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 49. SH. SANT RAM, S/O SH. ROOP SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n RANOT, PO KARTOT, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 285\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GSSS NOGLI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n 50. SH. SANJEEV KUMAR, S/O SH. PURSHOTTAM, R/O VPO\n SARAHAN, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS BONDA, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n SHIMLA (H.P).\n\n\n\n\n\n 51. SH. YASHE ZANGMO, S/O ANGOUP DORJE, R/O VPO\n SAGNAM, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS SAGNAM, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 52. SH. ANIL KUMAR, S/O SH. BALI RAM, R/O VPO NAYAGAON,\n TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GSSS GULLING, DISTRICT LAHAUL\n\n\n\n\n\n & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 53. SH.CHHERING DAWA, S/O SH. NARAYAN SINGH, R/O VPO\n SAGNAM, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GSSS TAILING, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 54. SH.KALZANG NAMGIAL, S/O SH. TANZINTHUKTAN, R/O\n VILLAGE GAITEY, P.O KEE GOMPA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS\n\n\n CHHICHAM, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 55. SH.DIKIT LIAMO, S/O SH. PANCHHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n CHHICHAM, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL KAZA, DISTRICT LAHAUL &\n\n\n\n\n SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GMS\n CHHICHAM, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 56. SH.CHHERING DOLKAR, S/O SH. LOBZANG CHHODA, R/O\n VPO LALUNG, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS HIKKIM, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 57. SH.TSULTRIM ZANSCHUK, S/O SH. ANGRUP DORJE, R/O\n VPO SAGNAM, TEHSIL KAZA, DISTRICT LAHAULSPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GHS KUNGRI GOMPA,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 58. SH.KALZANG CHHUNIT, S/O SH. CHHERING ANGRUP, R/O\n VPO LALUNG, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAULSPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 286\n\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS LALUNG. DISTRICT\n LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 59. SH.ANGCHU CHHENING, S/O SH. KALZANG CHHERING.\n R/O VPO KAZA, TEHSIL KAZA, DISTRICT LAHAULSPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS KEE GOMPA, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 60. SH.KALZANG CHRELM, S/O SH. TANZM, R/O VPO KEE\n GOMPA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GHS KEE GOMPA, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 61. SH.TANZIN ANGMO, S/O SH. CHHERING ANGFAIL, R/O\n VILLAGE CHICHAM, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS\n\n\n\n\n\n LANGCHA, DISTRICT LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 62. SH.CHHERING CHHOPAL, S/O SH. DORJE TANDUP, R/O\n VILLAGE CHICHAM, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n\n LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS\n DHANKHAR, DISTRICT LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 63. SH. AMAR SINGH, S/O SH. TASHI RAPTAIN, R/O VILLAGE\n LANGENU, P.O HIKKIM, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT\n\n\n GMS LANGCHA, DISTRICT LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 64. PREM LATA, D/O SH. CHHERING DORJE, R/O VPO KAZA,\n TEHSIL KAZA, DISTRICT LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GSSS KAZA, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 65. SH.RIGZIM CHHODEN, S/O SH. ZINPA NAMTAK, R/O VPO\n KAZA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GSSS KAZA, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 66.SHAIL BALA, D/O SH. MADHUKAR, R/O VPO RANGRIK,\n TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS PET AT GSSS RANGRIK, DISTRICT LAHAUL &\n SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 67. SH. LOBZANG CHHONZAN, S/O SH. LOBZANG, R/O VPO\n RANGRIK, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL&SPITI,(H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 287\n\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GHS HULL, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL&SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 68. SH. LABZANG DOLKAR, S/O SH. DORJE CHHERING, R/O\n VPO RANGRIK, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI,(H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS RANGRIK, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n LAHAULSPITI, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 69. SMT. KESANG URKIT, W/O SH. ANGDUI NORBU, R/O VPO\n KAZA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT G888 KIBBER, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 70. SH. CHHULDIM TANZIN, S/O SH. TASHI TANDUP, R/O VPO\n KAZA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMB CHICHAM, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 71. SMT. KUMARI DOLMA, W/O SH. PADMA DORJE, R/O\n VILLAGE TANGDI, P.O GULING, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS\n TANGDI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n\n 72. SH. SHAM CHAND, S/O SH. NAIN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n GHATU, P.O BARAG, TEHSIL SANGRAH, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS ORIENTAL TEACHER AT GHS\n\n\n KAJWA, DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P.).\n\n 73. SH. RAJENDER SINGH, S/O SH. SANIYA RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n TATWA, P.O KORAG, SUB. TEHSIL HARIPURDHAR, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS ORIENTAL\n TEACHER AT GMS CHARMA,, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 74. SH. VIRENDER SINGH, S/O SH. MANSA RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n KAJWA, P.O BHALONA, TEHSIL SANGRAH, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS\n KAJWA, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 75. MAMTA, D/O SH. BALVIR SINGH, R/O VPO & TEHSIL\n SANGRAH, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING\n AS ORIENTAL TEACHER AT GMS BORLI, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,\n (H.P.)\n\n 76. SH. JAGDISH CHAND, S/O SH. KANTHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n MASHWA, P.O KANTIMASHWA, TEHSIL KAMROU, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 288\n\n\n SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS OT AT GMS SALAG\n SADDI, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 77. SH. VIPIN KUMAR, S/O SH. KRISHAN CHAND, R/O VILLAGE\n KHANDA, P.O K.W. BHOOD, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT\n SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GSSS\n\n\n\n\n .\n KIARI, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 78. SH. SUNIL DUTT, S/O SH. GIAN DUTT SHARMA, R/O VPO\n CHAKLI, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS ORIENTAL TEACHER AT GSSS\n\n\n\n\n\n KIARI, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 79. SH. KAMLESH CHAND, S/O SH. GOPAL SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE KATOLA, P.O SAINWALA, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT\n SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS KIARI,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 80. SH. YOGESH KUMAR, S/O SH. SURENDER KUMAR, R/O\n VILLAGE JANGLA BHOOD, P.O BARMA PAPRI, TEHSIL NAHAN,\n\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT\n GHS JANGLA BHOOD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 81. SH. SATISH KUMAR, S/O SH. MOHAN SINGH, R/O VPO\n BARMAPAPRI, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS K.W. BHOOD, DISTRICT\n\n\n SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 82. SH. VIKRAM SINGH, S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n DHANGWALI, P.O K.W. BHOOD, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS\n BALSAR, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 83. SMT. ASHA RANI, D/O SH. RONKI RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n AMRAYION BAKRALA, P.O BRAMA PAPRI, TEHSIL NAHAN,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n ORIENTAL TEACHER AT GSSS K.W. BHOOD, DISTRICT\n SIRMOUR, (H.P.)\n\n 84. SH. MAAN SINGH, S/O SH. ISHWERDASS, R/O VILLAGE\n CHICHWARI, P.O ROHAL, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS JABAL,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 289\n\n\n 85. SH. RAVINDER KUMAR, S/O SH. JAWAHAR LAL, R/O\n VILLAGE CHICHWARI, P.O ROHAL, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT\n GSSS ROHAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 86. SH. MAHENDER SINGH, S/O SH. KARAM DASS, R/O\n\n\n\n\n .\n VILLAGE DALI, P.O MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GHS\n KHAROT, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 87. SH. MANDEEP KUMAR, S/O SH. KEWAL RAM, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGENANDLA, P.O JANGLA, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GHS\n KHAROT, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 88. SH. VIKRAM SINGH, S/O LATE SH. PYARE LAL, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SUNDHA-BHONDA, P.O JANGLA, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT\n GMS JAKHNOTI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 89. SH. JAINDER SINGH, S/O SH. BHISHAM SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE NAVI, P.O MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS KHAROT,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 90. SH. SATYA DEV, S/O SH. BANKA RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n NANDLA, P.O JANGLA, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GHS JABAL U/C\n GSSS GAONSARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n 91. SH. DEEP RAJ, S/O SH. DEENA LAL, R/O VILLAGE TODSA,\n P.O TODSA, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GHS AMBOI U/C GSSS\n JANGLA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 92. SH. VINOD KUMAR, S/O LATE SH. VYAS DEV, R/O VILLAGE\n SUNDHA, P.O CHIRGAON, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS\n BHETYANI U/C GSSS GAONSARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 93. SH. VINOD KUMAR, S/O SH. SUKH CHAIN SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE GAJYANI, P.O SINDASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT\n GSSS PEKHA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 290\n\n\n 94. SH. SHANTA KUMAR, S/O SH. HIRPAL SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE PEJA, P.O KHASHDHAR, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT\n GSSS KHASHDHAR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 95. ANPURNA, D/O SH. DEVINDER SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n .\n ANAND BIHAR SALON, HOUSE NO. 198 TEHSIL & DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SOLAN, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS BHETYANI\n U/C GSSS GAONSERI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 96. SH. BHAG SINGH, S/O SH. SARAN DASS, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n JATWARI, P.O PEKHA, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS PEKHA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 97. SH. HITENDER SINGH, S/O SH. RAMESHWER SINGH, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE JAKHI, P.O KHASHDAR, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET\n ATGMS JAKHI U/E GSSS KHASHDHAR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.)\n\n 98. SH. LOKINDER SINGH, S/O SH. PADAMCHAND, R/O VPO\n\n KHASHDHAR, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GMS JAKHI U/C GSSS\n KHASHDHAR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n 99. SH. VISHWA NATH, S/O SH. ARJUN SINGH, R/O VPO\n PEKHA, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS DHAMWARI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n 100. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, S/O SH. SHAKTI LAL, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n DESOTI, P.O GAONSARI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS\n GAONSARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 101. GEETA DEVI, D/O SH. BRAMA NAND, R/O VILLAGE\n BHATWARI, P.O KALOTI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GSSS\n KALOTI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 102. SH. PROMOD KUMAR, S/O SH. BRAHMA NAND, R/O\n VILLAGE TADSA, P.O TADSA, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GMS MANGHARA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 291\n\n\n\n 103. SH. SWAROOP NEGI, S/O SH. DINA NATH NEGI, R/O\n VILLAGE KULGAON, P.O JANGLA, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,.\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT\n GMS THANA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n .\n 104. SH. MADHU RAM, S/O SH. NAND RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n TANDALI, P.O KARASA, TEHSIL ROHRU, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GSSS SARIBASA,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 105. SH. SATISH KUMAR, S/O SH. SUKHSAIN, R/O VPO\n DEVIDHAR, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS BANOTI, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 106. SH. ASHU KUMAR, S/O SH. SHAMSHER SINGH, R/O VPO\n ARAHAL, TEHSIL ROHRU, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DM AT GSSS ARHAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 107. SH. RAVINDER KUMAR, S/O SH. NAROTAM DASS, R/O\n\n VPO DOFDA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS PAT U/C GSSS\n KASHPAT, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n 108. SH. VIKRAM SINGH, S/O SH. MAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n CHAMBI, P.O JANEDGHAT, TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET AT GMS DEHRA DOHAI U/C\n GSSS DUBLOO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n 109. SH. PANKAJ KUMAR, S/O SH. DEV RAJ, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n SOLDHA, P.O SOLDHA, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS ARTS & CRAFT AT GMS DHAR\n SOLDHA U/C GSSS SOLDHA, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 110. SH. SURESH KUMAR, S/O SH. BABU RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n KAJEWRA, P.O JUNGA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASHTRI AT GMS DEHRA DOHAI\n U/C GSSS DUBLOO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 111. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, S/O SHRI KARTAR SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE SAMOLI, TEHSIL ROHRU, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET IN\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 292\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAMOLI, TEHSIL\n ROHRU DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.).\n\n 112. SHRI KALZANG TANZIN, S/O SHRI SURENDER SINGH,\n R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE POOH, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET IN\n\n\n\n\n .\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL (LABRANG) POOH, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n POOH, DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n 113. SHRI NAWANG DOLKAR, S/O SHRI RAM LAL, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE POOH, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n KINNAUR (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS LT IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL POOH, TEHSIL\n POOH, DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n 114. SHRI SUSHEEL KUMAR S/O SHRI KARMA YANTAN, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE POOH, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL POOH, TEHSIL\n POOH, DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n 115. SHRI CHHERING DEKIT, S/O SHRI GOPAL SINGH, R/O\n\n VILLAGE MALING, PO NAKO, SUB-TEHSIL HANGRANG,\n DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHASTRI\n IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL POOH, TEHSIL\n POOH DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n\n\n 116. SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR S/O SHRI SONAM TOBGIR, R/O\n VILLAGE CHANGO, SUB-TEHSIL HANGRANG, DISTRICT\n KINNAUR (H.P.). PRESENTLY WOKRING AS PET IN\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANGO,\n DISTIRET KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 117. SMT. VIDYA DEVI D/O SHRI LOBZANG, R/O VILLAGE\n CHANGO, SUB-TEHSIL HANGRANG, DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY WOKRING AS SHASTRI IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANGO, DISTIRET KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n 118. MS. ASHA KUMARI W/O SHRI SATISH KUMAR SHARMA,\n R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL SANGRAH,\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n DRAWING MASTER IN GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SUKH\n CHAINPUR, DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 293\n\n\n 119. MS. PEENA W/O KULDEEP SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KUFFER,\n PO BHAROLI, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P.).\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRAWING MASTER IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHAROLI,\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n .\n 120. SHRI MOHAMMAD. ARIF, S/O SHRI HAIDER ALI, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE MANJEER, TEHSIL SALOONI\n DISTRICT CHAMBA (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS ART &\n CRAFT TEACHER IN GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL BIANA,\n U/C GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL SURANGANI, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n\n SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA (H.P.).\n\n 121. SHRI VINOD KUMAR, S/O SHRI DEV, R/O VILLAGE &\n POST OFFICE MANJEER, TEHSIL SALOONI DISTRICT CHAMBA\n (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS ART & CRAFT TEACHER IN\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SINGADHAR, U/C\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SALOONI, DAY\n ISTRO TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA (H.P.).\n\n 122. SHRI DINESH KUMAR S/O SHRI SITA RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n KHADAR, PO NAKWARA, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL SARAIN, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA (H.P.)\n .....PETITIONERS.\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n\n\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n\n\n\n\n\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 171002.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE\n GENERAL.)\n\n 29. CWP NO. 1513 OF 2021.\n\n BETWEEN\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 294\n\n\n\n 1. SH. ASHISH KUMAR, S/O SH. PRATAP CHAND, AGED\n 5YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DIB, P.O RITT, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n TGT(ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n LAHAT, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 2. SH. SANJEEV SINGH, S/O SH. ATMA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n & POST OFFICE ARSU, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (NM) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ARSU, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. SH. RAMESH KUMAR, S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE KUKHI, P.O DARKALI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (NM) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KUKHI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.)\n\n 4. MS. BIRMA DEVI, D/O SH. TARA CHAND, R/O VILLAGE\n JABHAYA, P.O KHANERI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BADHAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n (H.P.).\n\n 5. SH. GADHIRI LAL, S/O SH. PYARE LAL, R/O VILLAGE\n DARMOT, P.O KHARGA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHARGA, DISTRICT KULLU,\n (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n 6. MS. MINAKSHI, W/O SH. SUHIL KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE\n GAHANA, P.O KHUNNI, TEHSIL NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (NM) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DUTTNAGAR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 7. SH. VINOD THAKUR, S/O SH. SHYAM LAL, R/O VILLAGE\n NAGANI, P.O JAON, TEHSIL AANI, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS TOT (NM) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LADHGI, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.)\n\n 8. SMT. MAMTA DEVI W/O SH. VINOD THAKUR, R/O\n VILLAGE NAGANI, PO JAON, TEHSIL AANI, DISTRICT KULLU,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (M) AT GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 295\n\n\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LADHGI, DISTRICT KULLU,\n (H.P.).\n\n 9. SMT. POONAM W/O SH. VIJAY AMIT RAWAL, R/O\n VILLAGE SUMBI, P.O BARAGRAN, TEHSIL MANALI, DISTRICT\n KULLU, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) AT\n\n\n\n\n .\n GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BURWA, DISTRICT KULLU,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.).\n\n 10. MS. SEEMA DEVI, D/O SH. PUNI CHAND, R/O VILLAGE\n KARORI, P.O RAJOT, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (NM) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL LUGAT U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL MAJHERA, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.).\n\n 11. MS. SARITA, D/O SH. ARJUN SINGH, R/O VPO ALAMPUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS TGT (M) AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL GANDER, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.).\n\n 12. MS. SUSHMA DEVI, D/O SH. DESH RAJ, R/O VPO\n GANGATH, TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (NM) AT GOVERNMENT (GIRLS)\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GANGATH, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n (H.P.).\n\n\n 13. MS. VIJAY BHARTI, D/O SH. BODH RAJ, R/O TARA\n BHAWAN SHARMA NIWAS MALYANA, P.O MALYANA, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (M) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAJHAR,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 14. MS. SEEMA, W/O SH. TANZIN GIATO THAKUR, R/O\n HOUSE NO. 282, WARD NO- 11, NEAR SILVER MOON HOTEL\n SHASHTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n\n\n\n\n\n WORKING AS TGT (M) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL\n PANIHAR U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n THATIBIR, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.).\n\n 15. SH. JIYAN TANZIN, S/O SH. PUNCHOK CHHERING, R/O\n VILLAGE KEE, P.O KEE GOMPA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SAGNAM,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 296\n\n\n 16. SH. FURGU DORJE, S/O SH. SONAM DORJE, R/O VILLAGE\n & POST OFFICE SAGNAM, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL &\n SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GULLING,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n .\n 17. SH. DORJE REGZIN. S/O SH. CHHERING DORJE, R/O VPO\n\n\n\n\n\n KEE GOMPA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n MIDDLE SCHOOL KINORI GOMPA, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI,\n (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 18. SH. CHHERING ANGCHUK, S/O SH. TASHI ANGCHUK, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE KEE SAGNAM, TEHSIL SPITI,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS\n TGT (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL KINORI\n\n\n\n\n\n GOMPA, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 19. SH. KAPIL KUMAR, S/O SH. PALDEN, R/O VPO SAGNAM,\n TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n\n WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL\n TAILING, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 20. SH. SONAM GATUK, S/O SH. URGIAN GATUK, R/O VILLAGE\n & POST OFFICE MANE YAGMA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LOSSAR,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 21. SH. TANZIN DORJE, S/O SH. CHHERING RAPTEN, R/O\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICEKHURIK, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HANSA,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 22. SH. BHUP CHAND, S/O SH. LEKH RAM, R/O VILLAGE &\n POST OFFICE KHAKHARIANA, TEHSIL RIWALSAR, DISTRICT\n MANDI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (NM) AT\n GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL TANGTI GOMPA, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 23. SH. TANZIN DORJE, S/O SH. KALZANGTANSUP, R/O\n VILLAGE GAITEY, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 297\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL FEB 2021\n KEE GOMPA, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 24. SH. CHHUNIT DORJE, S/O SH. ANGROP, R/O VPO TABO,\n TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS TGT (ARTA) AT GSSS MANE, DISTRICT LAHAUL\n\n\n\n\n .\n & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 25. SH. PWUNCHOG GIAISON, S/O SH. CHHEWANG ANGROP,\n R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE MANE, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANE,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 26. SH. TENZIN PHUNCHOG. S/O SH. MAKHAN SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICEGUE, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GUE, DISTRICT LAHAUL &\n SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 27. SH. YESHEY CHHOMO, S/O SH. SUKH DAVAL, R/O VPO\n TABO, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI,(H.P.)\n\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLTABO, DISTRICT LAHAUL &\n SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n\n 28. SH. KALZANG RINCHEN, S/O SH. PASANG CHHERING. R/O\n VILLAGE CHICHAM, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KIBBER,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 29. SH. RAJESH, S/O SH. SNAM TANDUP, R/O VPO\n DHANKHAR, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT HIGH\n\n\n\n\n\n SCHOOL DHANKHAR, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 30. SH. DIKIT DOLKER, S/O SH. TASHI DORJE, R/O VPO\n RANGRIK, TEHSIL KAZA, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RANGRIK, DISTRICT LAHAUL &\n SPITI. (H.P.).\n\n 31. MS. SUSHMA, D/O SH. SHER SINGH, R/O VILLAGE & POST\n OFFICE HANSA, TEHSIL KAZA, DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI,\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 298\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (NM) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HANSA, DISTRICT LAHAUL&\n SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 32. SH. TANZIN ZIMED, S/O SH. KONCHOK TARGEY, R/O\n VILLAGE CHICHAM, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHICHAM, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n 33. SH. BRIJESHWAR SINGH, S/O SH. SURJAM SINGH, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE MANKOT, P.O GAONSARI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MANGYARI,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 34. SMT. SHYAMA SHARMA, W/O SH. HUKUM CHAND, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE SHAMBHU WALA, TEHSIL NAHAN,\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (NM)\n AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MATTAR,\n\n DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.).\n\n 35. SH. ANAND SHARMA, S/O SH. BAHADUR SINGH SHARMA,\n R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT(M) AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MASLI,\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.).\n\n 36. SH. BALDEV SINGH, S/O SH. JAI DEV, R/O VILLAGE\n KHAROT, P.O MASLI, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT(ARTS) AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MASLI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.).\n 37. MS. KIRAN KUMARI D/O SHRI KALZANGWANGDU, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE DUBLING, TEHSIL POOH, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n KINNAUR (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS) IN\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL POOH, TEHSIL\n POOH, DISTRICT KINNAUR (H.P.).\n\n 38. MS. POONAM KUMARI, S/O SHRI VICJITAR SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE KHAROUT, PO THONA, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,\n DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.). PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT (ARTS)\n IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NISHU,\n DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.).\n .....PETITIONERS.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 299\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 171002.\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001\n\n\n\n\n\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 30. CWP NO. 1608 OF 2022.\n\n BETWEEN r\n 1. SUMAN KUMAR, (D.P.E.) S/O SH SARWAN KUMAR, AGED\n\n 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JHIRA, POST OFFICE TOBA, TAHSIL\n SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL NANGE THAKUR,\n BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n 2. HUSSAN CHAND, (D.M.), S/O SH HEMRAJ AGED ABOUT\n 41 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DEHANI, POST OFFICE TARSOOH,\n TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P.\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL NANGE\n THAKUR, BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. SATYA DEV JASWAL, (LECTURER COMMERCE), S/O SH\n SHANT RAM AGED 46 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GALLIAN, P.O.\n SER, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL NANGE\n THAKUR, BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n 4. GURDEEP SINGH, (D.P.E.) S/O SH NASIB SINGH, AGED\n ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAND BEHLA, P.O. TOBA,\n TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. SR. SEC SCHOOL MAJARI,\n BILASPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 300\n\n\n 5. USHA KUMARI, (T.G.T.), W/O SH. ASHOK KUMAR, AGED\n ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JHIRIAN, P.O. LAKHNOO,\n TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL JHIRIAN U/C\n G.S.S.S. TOBA, BIALSPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 6. KAMAL DEV, (P.E.T.) S/O ANANT RAM, AGED ABOUT 42\n\n\n\n\n\n YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SWANA, POST OFFICE NAKRANA,\n TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL SWANA U/C\n G.S.S.S. NAKRANA, BIALSPUR, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 7. KAMLA KUMARI, (D.M.), D/O SH DHANI RAM AGED 40\n YEARS R/O VILLAGE GALUA, POST OFFICE NAKRANA, TEHSIL\n SRI NAINADEVI JI, DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVT MIDDLE SCHOOL SWANA U/S GOVT. SR.\n\n\n\n\n\n SEC. SCHOOL NAKRANA, BIALSPUR, H.P.\n\n 8. KARAM CHAND, (P.E.T.) S/O SH RAM LAL, AGED ABOUT\n 49 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAKRANA, TEHSIL SRI NAINA DEVI\n\n JI, DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT G.S.S.S.\n NAKRANA\n\n 9. KULDEEP SINGH, (P.E.T.) S/O SH NAND LAL AGED ABOUT\n 37 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. LAKHNOO, TEHSIL SRI NAINA\n DEVIJI, DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n\n\n GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL DHAROT U/C G.S.S.S. LAKHNOO,\n BIALSPUR, H.P.\n\n 10. DHYAN CHAND, (P.E.T.), S/O SH MAST RAM AGED ABOUT\n\n\n\n\n 41 YEARS R/O VILLAGE KHARKARI P.O. & TEHSIL SRI NAINA\n DEVIJI, DISTRICT BILASPUR H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL KHERI U/C G.S.S.S. TOBA, BILASPUR,\n H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 11. ANIL KUMAR, (O.T./SHASTRI) S/O SH. PREM LAL AGED\n 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JHARERI P.O. KALOL, TEHSIL\n JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED\n AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL DEHANI U/C GSSS NANGE\n THAKUR, H.P.\n\n 12. SANTOSH KUMAR, (T.G.T. MEDICAL), S/O SH BHAG\n SINGH, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O V.P.O. CHOLANGARH, TEHSIL\n SANDHOL DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT MODEL SR.SEC. SCHOOL SANDHOL.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 301\n\n\n\n 13. PREM CHAND DASTA, (LECTURER POL. SCIENCE), S/O\n LATE SH DEVI RAM, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE FAWLA,\n P.O. IRRA, TEHSIL NERWA, DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AT G.S.S.S. IMA SHIMLA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 14. PUSHPINDER VERMA, (DRAWING TEACHER), S/O SH. ROOP\n\n\n\n\n\n RAM. VERMA, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE FAWLA, P.O.\n IRRA, TEHSIL NERWA, DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P. PRESENTLY\n POSTED AT GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHALAN,\n KUMARSAIN, SHIMLA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 15. DEVINDER KUMAR (PTI) S/O SH. HEM RAJ, AGED 43\n YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DUSHRA KHABU PO THINNAGALU TEH\n BALH DISTT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT GHS\n CHHAJWAN KHABOO TEH. BALH DISTT. MANDI,H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 16. ANITA KUMARI (LECT. HINDI), W/O SH. LAL SINGH, AGED\n 44 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BARNOTA PO KHALANOO TEH. KOTLI\n DISTT. MANDI PRESENT PLACE OF POSTING AT GSSS\n\n SADIANA, MANDI.\n\n 17. SAVITA KUMARI, (O.T.), W/O DINESH KUMAR, AGED 39\n YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MAGNOOH, P.O. KAKIRA, TEHSIL\n BHATIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AT\n GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL AWAN, CHAMBA.\n\n\n\n ....PETITIONERS.\n (BY SH. KUSH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\n AND\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n SECRETARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA-2, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 3. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF\n EDUCATION, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n ....RESPONDENTS.\n\n (BY SH. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE\n GENERAL)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 302\n\n\n 31.CWP NO. 1277 OF 2021.\n BETWEEN\n 1. SH. DHANBIR SINGH, S/O SH. ROOP SINGH, AGED ABOUT\n 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BERI WALA, P.O K.W. BHOOD,\n TEHSIL. NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n\n\n\n\n .\n SCHOOL K.W. BHOOD, TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n (H.P.).\n\n 2. SH. RANJEET SINGH, S/O SH. KEWAL RAM, R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n THANACH, P.O JAON, TEHSIL AANI, DISTRICT KULLU, (H.P.)\n PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL LADHAGI, DISTRICT KULLU, HP.\n\n 3. SMT. MEERA VERMA, W/O SH. ANIL KUMAR, R/O FLAT\n\n\n\n\n\n NO. 3, BLOCK-H, SUGANDHA APARTMENTS SAPROON BYE\n PASS SOLAN, DISTRICT SOLAN, (H.P.) WORKING AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SUBATHU\n SOLAN, DISTRICT SOLAN, (H.P.)\n\n 4. SH. JETENDER KATOCH, S/O SH. PRAVEEN KATOCH,\n\n R/O VPO RIT, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n 176086. PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT\n SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LAPLAH, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) 176073.\n\n\n 5. SH. KALZANG CHUNDUI, S/O SH. SONAM CHOPEL, R/O\n VILLAGE GETUJ, P.O KIBBER, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT\n LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KIBBER,\n DISTRICT LAHAUL & SPITI, (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 6. SH. ANIL KUMAR, S/O SH. HARI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n MAGHARA, P.O DOFDA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DOFDA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)\n\n 7. SH. SUCHA SINGH, S/O SH. UDHAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n & POST OFFICE JALAG, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL MAKOL,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 8. SH. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O SH. FATEH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE\n SOLE BNAHER, P.O UPPER LAMBAGAON, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 303\n\n\n JAISINGHPUR, AT DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS DPE A GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SANGHOL, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 9. SH. ANUJ KUMAR, S/O SH. KASHMIR SINGH, R/O\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE SALEHRA, TEHSIL BAIJNATH,\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT\n\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TAMBER,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.).\n\n 10. SH. ANIL KUMAR CHAND, S/O SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH, R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE GAGGAL KHAS, TEHSIL DHEERA,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DAROH,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 11. SH. BABU RAM, S/O SH. SARAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE &\n POST OFFICE DRUG, TEHSIL BAIJNATH, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DAGOH, DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n 12. SH. MAHADEV SINGH, S/O LT. SH. PRITTAM SINGH, R/O\n\n VILLAGE & POST OFFICE THANDOL, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,\n DISTRICT KANGRA, (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GHAR, DISTRICT\n KANGRA, (H.P.)\n\n\n\n 13. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, S/O SHRI JAGDISH CHAND, R/O\n VILLAGE SOHARI, TEHSIL BIJHARI (DHATWAL), PO SOHARI,\n DISTRICT UNA (H.P.) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE IN\n\n\n\n\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BIJHARI,\n DISTRICT HAMIRPUR (H.P.).\n\n\n\n\n\n 14. SHRI MAHENDER KUMAR S/O SHRI BAKSHI RAM, R/O\n VILLAGE SOHRABIUNS, PO SAI KHARSI, TEHSIL SADAR,\n\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH. PRESENTLY\n WORKING AS DPE IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY\n SCHOOL SOLDHA, DISTRICT BILASPUR (H.P.).\n ...PETITIONERS.\n\n (BY SH. ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 304\n\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001.\n\n\n\n\n .\n .... RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 32. CWP NO. 1564 OF 2021\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. PARMOD KUMAR NEGI S/O LATE SH. KUNDAN LAL NEGI\n VILL. BOHLI P.O. KUNGAL- BALTI TEH. NANKHARI DISTT.\n SHIMLA (H.P) PIN.-172001 PRESENTLY (TGT).\n\n 2. DAVINDER S/O SH RATTAN DASS. C/O VILLAGE\n\n DANAWALI, TEH. NANKHARI DIST. SHIMLA (H.P) (LECTURER\n\n ENGLISH).\n\n 3. DAYAL SINGH S/O LATE SH. LAXMI SINGH VILL. AND P.O.\n JAHOO (DHALA), TEH. NANKHARI DISTT. SHIMLA KHUNNI,\n SHIMLA. (TGT)) (H.P) 171213, TGT (NM), GSSS.\n\n\n\n 4. SUSHIL KUMAR S/O PALAS RAM R/O V.P.O. SHOLI TEH.\n NANKHARI DISTT.SHIMLA (H.P) 172001 (SHASTRI).\n\n\n\n\n 5. VIDYA NEGI D/O LATE SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH NEGI VILL.\n GAHAN P.O. KHUNNI, TEH. NANKHARI DISTT. SHIMLA (R.P)\n\n\n\n\n\n PIN.- 171213(PTI).\n\n 6. NITYA DUTT S/O SH. KRISHNA DEV VILL.-\n\n\n\n\n\n BHAMRALA,P.Q. BAHLI.TEH. RAMPUR DISTT. SHIMLA (H.P)\n PIN.172022. (TGT).\n\n 7. SHASHI DEV S/O LATE SH. SANGET RAM, V.P.O.\n KHAMADI TEH. RAMPUR DISTT. SHIMLA (H.P) (LT).\n\n ..PETITIONERS\n ( BY SH. NAVLESH VERMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 305\n\n\n\n 1 THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH IT'S\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA- 171002.\n\n 2) THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3) THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001.\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 33. CWP NO. 1644 OF 2021\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n 1. DINESH THAKUR, S/O SH. RAM CHARAN DASS THAKUR,\n\n R/O VILLAGE KAROLI, PO KHAMADI, TEH. NANKHARI, DISTT.\n\n SHIMLA, H.P. AGED 45 YEARS.\n\n 2. MAHENDER SINGH, S/O LATE SH. KEWAL RAM, VILL,\n CHAMADA, PO KHAMADI, TEH. NANKHARI, DISTT. SHIMLA,\n H.P..\n\n\n\n 3. SAAR SINGH, S/O LATE SH. MANOHAR DASS, PO\n KHAMADI, TEHSIL NANKHARI, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P. VILLAGE\n AND PO KHAMADI, TEHSIL NANKHARI, DISTT, SHIMLA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ALL THREE PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)\n\n\n\n\n\n AT GSSS KHAMADI, TEH. NANKHARI, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.\n .....PETITIONERS\n ( BY SH. NAVLESH VERMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\n\n AND\n\n 1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH IT'S\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA- 171002.\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001.\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 306\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n 34. CWP NO. 4275 OF 2021\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 1. LAIQ RAM S/O. SH. BUDHI SINGH, R/O. VILLAGE JAGUNI,\n P.O. DANSA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.,\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TGT (ARTS) AT GHS KARTOT UNDER\n\n\n\n\n\n COMPLEX GSSS DHAR GAURA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA.\n\n 2. OM PARKASH S/O. KHIMA RAM, R/O. VILLAGE KUNNI,\n P.O. SHAHDHAR, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.,\n\n\n\n\n\n PRESENTLY. POSTED AS TGT (ARTS) AT GSSS SARAHAN\n BUSHAHR.\n\n 3. SATYA DEVI D/O. SH. KANSHI RAM R/O. VILLAGE KUNNI,\n P.O. SHAHDHAR, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.,\n\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TGT (ARTS) AT GHS SHAHDHAR.\n\n 4. URMILA KUMARI D/O. SH. SHER SINGH, R/O. VILLAGE\n KAHNASH P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA\n H.P., PRESENTLY POSTED AS TGT (ARTS) AT GSSS KINNU.\n\n\n 5. BASANT LAL S/O. SH. ROSHAN LAL, R/O. VPO. KARERI,\n TEHSIL TOU RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P., PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS TGT (ARTS) AT GHS KARERI, UNDER COMPLEX\n GSSS DEOTHI.\n\n\n\n\n 6. BODH RAJ S/O. SH. TEJ PRAKASH, R/O. VILLAGE KUNNI,\n\n\n\n\n\n P.O. O REGALSDHAR, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA\n H.P., PRESENTLY POSTED AS TGT (MEDICAL) AT GSSS\n BADHAL.\n\n\n\n\n\n 7. JAGDEV CHAND S/O. SH. OM PRAKASH, R/O. VILLAGE\n PANOLI, P.O. DANSA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS TGT (MEDICAL) AT GSSS RACHOLI.\n\n 8. RAJINDER KUMAR S/O. SH. GAUTAM SAIN, R/O.\n VILLAGE PATAINA, P.O. DEOTHI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT\n SHIMLA H.P. POSTED AS TGT (NON-MEDICAL) AT GSSS\n DEOTHI.\n ..PETITIONERS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 307\n\n\n\n (BY SH. DIWAN SINGH NEGI, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P. SHIMLA-2\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR (ELEMENTARY EDUCATION), HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA H.P.\n ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n 35. CWP NO. 2394 OF 2022\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n 1. to\n HARI OM, S/O LACHMI DASS, AGE 44 YEARS, R/O\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TATTAPANI, TEHSIL KARSOG,\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS TGT NON\n MEDICAL GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL NEHRI, H.P.\n\n 2. BODH RAJ, S/O SH. TEK CHAND, AGE 43 YEARS, R/O\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE HARABOI, TEHSIL NIHRI,\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY POST AS SHASTRI\n GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL HARA BOI.\n\n 3. TEK CHAND, S/O SH. RAMESHWAR SINGH, AGE 41\n\n\n\n\n YEARS R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DOGHARI, TEHSIL\n NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n SHASTRI GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL DOGHRI, H.P.\n\n .....PETITIONERS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. DIWAN SINGH NEGI, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL\n SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P. SHIMLA-2.\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR (ELEMENTARY EDUCATION), HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA H.P.\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 308\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE\n GENERAL)\n\n 36. CWP NO. 2396 OF 2022\n\n\n\n\n .\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. GULZARI LAL, S/O SH. PARAS RAMAGE 40 YEARS, R/O\n SH.CHOURI, PO BALAG, TEHSIL NEHRI, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.\n PRESENTLY POSTED AS PG (ENGLISH) GOVT. SENIOR\n\n\n\n\n\n SECONDARY SCHOOL DOGHRI, H.P.\n\n 2. YOGESH KUMAR, S/O SHRI BALKRISHAN AGE 44 YEARS,\n R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MAHADEV, TEHSIL\n SUNDERNAGAR DISTRICT MANDI, H.P PRESENTLY POSTED AS\n\n\n\n\n\n PGT (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AT GSS CHHAMYAR DISTRICT\n MANDI, H.P.\n r .....PETITIONERS\n\n (BY SH. DIWAN SINGH NEGI, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.\n\n\n SHIMLA-2\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR (HIGHER EDUCATION), HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n\n\n\n\n 37. CWP NO. 2577 OF 2022\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O SH. SATWANT RAI, R/O VILLAGE AND\n PO RIBBA, TEHSIL MOORANG, DISTRICT KINNAUR, H.P .AGED\n ABOUT 52 YEARS.\n ..........PETITIONER\n\n (BY SH. O.P. NEGI, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 309\n\n\n\n AND\n\n 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.\n SHIMLA-2.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 2. THE DIRECTOR (HIGHER EDUCATION), HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, SHIMLA-I.\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n 38. CWP NO. 7056 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n 1. PRATAP SINGH SON OF LATE SHRI LAYAK RAM\n RESIDENT OF VPO RAJPUR TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB DISTRICT\n\n SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 2. BABITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI RATTI RAM RESIDENT\n OF VPO KORGA TEHSIL KAMROO DISTRICT SIRMAUR\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n 3. MANJU DAUGHTER OF SHRI JATTI RAM RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE ROUHANA POST OFFICE KORGA TEHSIL KAMROO\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 4. ANITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI INDER SINGH\n RESIDENT OF VPO POKA TESIL KAMRAU DISTRICT SIRMAUR\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 5. SANGEETA KUMARI SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SHRI BAROO\n\n\n\n\n\n RAM SHARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NADDI POST OFFICE\n SATAUN DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 6. SHYAMA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI LAYAK RAM\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KULTHINA POST OFFICE RAJ PURA\n TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 310\n\n\n 7. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI DAYA RAM RESIDENT OF\n PO SATAUN TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 8. NARESH CHAND SON OF SHRI MADAN SINGH RESIDENT\n OF VPO SATAUN TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTRICT SIRMAUR\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 9. RAM LAL SON OF SHRI KANSHI RAM RESIDENT OF VPO\n SATAUN TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 10. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI SHYAM SINGH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE TONRU POST OFFICE DANDA ANJ TEHSIL PAONTA\n SAHIB DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 11. PURAN CHAND SON OF SHRI SHUPA RAM RESIDENT OF\n AND TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTRICT SINNAUR HIMACHAL\n PRADESH. r\n 12. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAI SINGH RESIDENT OF\n VPO AND TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH.\n\n 13. DEEP CHAND SON OF SHRI NAIN PRESENT PLACE OF\n POSTING GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL\n\n\n RAMPURGHAT TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB DISTRICT SIRMAUR\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 14. DALEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI SURAT SINGH RESIDENT OF\n\n\n\n\n VPO BANORE TEHSIL PEONTA SAHIB DISTRICT SIRMAUR\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 15. ASHA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI GULAB SINGH CHAUHAN,\n RESIDENT OF VPO BANORE TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 16. SURESH CHAND SON OF SHRI LAIK RAM RESIDENT OF\n VPO BANORE TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB DISTRICT SIRMAUR\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 17. SANTOSH CHAUHAN WIFE OF SHRI CHATTER SINGH\n RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUNOG TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 311\n\n\n 18. RAMSAWROOP SON OF SHRI JATI RAM SHARMA\n RESIDENT OF VPO GUDDI TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 19. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI SUMER CHAND RESIDENT\n OF VPO NAGHETA TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB DISTRICT SIRMAUR\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 20. MAYA RAM SON OF SHRI DHARAM SINGH RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE PAMTA POST OFFICE SHAWGA TEHSIL KMARAU\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2.1 ATTER SINGH SON OF SHRI NARAYAN SINGH PRESENT\n PLACE OF POSTING GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL AGRON\n U/C GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NAGHETA\n DISTRICT SIMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 22. KHAJAN SINGH SON OF SHRI MOHAR SINGH PRESENT\n PLACE OF POSTING LECTURER MATHS GOVERNMENT SENIOR\n SECONDARY SCHOOL BOYS TARUWAL DISTT SIRMAUR\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 23. AMIT CHAUHAN SON OF SHRI KHAJAN SINGH PRESENT\n PLACE OF POSTING DM GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL POCCA\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n 24. ANIL KUMAR S/O SH. JAGAT SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n BARWAS P.O & TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n 25. SUKH DEV S/O SH. GIAN SINGH R/O V.P.O KOGRA,\n TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTT SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 26. RAMESH CHAND S/O SH. DHARAM SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n BRIKHANA P.O KORGA TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTT. SIRMAUR\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 27. DEVENDER SHARMA S/O SH. TULSI RAM R/O VILLAGE\n RUHANA P.O KORGA TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTT SIRMAUR\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 28. JOGINDER SINGH S/O SH. DAYA RAM R/O VILLAGE\n BRIKHANA P.O KORGA TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTT SIRMAUR\n HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 312\n\n\n 29. GOPAL SINGH S/O SH. KHAZAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n MASHWA P.O KANTI MASHWA TEHSIL KAMRAU DISTT\n SIRMAUR HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 30. BASANT KUMAR, S/O SH. JOG RAM VPO THANGAR\n TEHSIL CHOPAL DISTT SHIMLA HIMAHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 31. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n SUNOG POST OFFICE SHIVA TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB DISTT\n SIRMAUR H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n ..PETITIONERS\n\n (BY SH. NEERAJ SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n 1.\n\n SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-2\n\n 2.\n r to\n STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.,\n\n\n DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n SHIMLA H.P.\n .......RESPONDENTS\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n\n\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n 39. CWP NO. 5186 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. SH. ONKAR CHAND SHARMA S/O DEEPAK RAM SHARMA\n R/O VILLAGE SHOBA PO DOCHI TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT\n SHIMLA H.P\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. SH. LOKPAL SHARMA S/O SH. DEEPAK RAM SHARMA\n R/O VILLAGE SHOBA PO DOCHI TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT\n SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 3. SH. MAHINDER LAL S/O SH. DURGA DASS R/O SAROT\n P.O DOCHI TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 313\n\n\n 4. SH. PARAMVEER SINGH S/O SH. MOHAN SINGH\n RATHOUR R/O VILLAGE KOHLARA P.O. PRAUNTHI TEHSIL\n JUBBAL DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 5. SH. RAKESH KUMAR S/O SH. JAI LAL R/O VILLAGE\n SARLI PO NANDPUR TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 6. SMT. MEENA DEVI W/O SH. VIRENDER CHAUHAN R/O\n VILLAGE BATAR PO KETHASU TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT\n SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 7. SH. BHOPINDER SINGH KHAGTA S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH\n R/O VILLAGE GIÀNH PO GIANH TEHSIL NERWA DISTRICT\n SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 8. SH. KULDEEP JUSTA S/O SH. KHUSHI RAM JUSTA R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE MANDHOLE P.O. MANDHOLE TEHSIL JUBBAL\n DISTRICT SHIMLA HP.\n\n 9. SH. DEEPAK JHANGTA S/O SH. KARM DASS R/O VILLAGE\n\n MANDHOLE P.O. MANDHOLE TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT\n SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 10. SH. SANJAY KUMAR S/O SH. MANGAT RAM R/O VPO\n MANDHOLE TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n 11. SH. DEVI SINGH S/O SH. KESU RAM R/O VILLAGE BAJAH\n PO TIKKERI (NEWAL) TEHSIL NERWA DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 12. SH. SURENDER SINGH S/O SH. MOTI SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n BAJAH P.O TIKARI TEHSIL NERWA DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 13. SH. SURENDER SINGH S/O SH. SHER SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n JAMATH P.O.TIKKARI (NEOL) TEHSIL NERWA DISTRICT\n SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 14. SMT. SURESH LATA W/O SH. RAKESH KUMAR R/O\n VILLAGE NANDPUR P.O NANDPUR TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT\n SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 15. SH. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SH. LAIQ RAM R/O VILLAGE\n SABHAR P.O.ANTI TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 314\n\n\n 16. SH PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SH JANGU LAL\n R/O VILLAGE BHATAR P.O, DHADI RAWAT TEHSIL JUBBAL\n DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 17. SH. DIWAN SINGH S/O SH. HUMA NAND R/O VILLAGE\n DHAKHRANTI P.O.ANTI TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 18. SH. UMESH KUMAR S/O SH. PRAG RAM R/O NEHNAR P.O.\n JUBBAL TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 19. SH. YASHWANT SINGH S/O SH. BIHARI LAL R/O TUTU\n\n\n\n\n\n PANI P.O.KADIWAN TEHSIL ROHRU DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 20. SH. NARESH KUMAR S/O SH. PRITAM SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n KEHRAL P.O.KATHASU TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 21. SH. PRAKASH CHAND S/O SH. RAMU MALL R/O VILLAGE\n PAL P.O.BAKHOL TEHSIL KOTKHAI DISTT SHIMLA HP\n\n 22. SH. VIRENDER KUMAR S/O LATESH. MADAN SINGH R/O\n\n VILLAGE KEHMALI P.O.PURAG TEHSIL KOTKHAI DISTT\n SHIMLA HP.\n\n 23. SMT. RAJNI MAJTA W/O PRADEEP MAJTA R/0 VILLAGE\n CHAMARU P.O PARAUNTHI TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT SHIMLA\n 171205.\n\n\n\n 24. M/S SHASHI KALA D/O SHER SINGH R/O V.P.O\n MANDHOLE TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT SHIMLA HIMACHAL\n PRADESH 171205.\n\n\n\n\n 25. SH. HARDESH KUMAR S/O SH. SANT RAM R/O V.P.O.\n\n\n\n\n\n PARAUNTHI TEHSIL JUBBAL DISTRICT SHIMLA.\n\n 26. M/S SWARNA DEVI D/O SH. BHAGAT RAM R/O V.P.O\n\n\n\n\n\n TIKKARI NEWAL TEHSIL CHOPAL DISTRICT SHIMLA.\n\n 27. SH. TEK RAM S/O SH. JAI DASS R/O VILLAGE\n BUSHEHARI P.O GASHAINI TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT KULLU H.P.\n PIN 175123.\n\n 28. SH. NOKE SINGH S/O SH. TEDDI SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n SHUKARI P.O. SUCHAIN (ROPA) SUB TEHSIL SAINJ DISTT\n KULLU H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 315\n\n\n 29. SH. NARAYAN SINGH S/O SH. UTTAM RAM R/O V.P.O. &\n SUB TEHSIL SAINJ DISTT KULLU H.P.\n\n 30. SMT. LEELA DEVI D/O SH. TEK RAM R/O VILLAGE\n MANHARA P.O BAZHARA SUB TEHSIL SAINJ DISTT KULLU H.P.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 31. SH. SUBHASH BHARDWAJ S/O SH. TEK RAM R/ V.P.O. &\n\n\n\n\n\n SUB TEHSIL SAINJ DISTT KULLU H.P.\n\n 32. SH. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O SH. PRAN NATH R/O VILLAGE\n THURASS P.O HURLA TEHSIL BHUNTAR DISTT KULLU.\n\n\n\n\n\n 33. SH. RAJ KUMAR S/O SH. DALA SINGH R/O V.P.O CHETHAR\n TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT KULLU H.P.\n\n 34. SH. GOVIND SHARMA S/O SH. SHAULAT RAM SHARMA R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE GHURALI P.O CHAUHANI TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT\n KULLU H.P.\n\n 35. SH. OM PRAKASH S/O SH. TULSI RAM R/O V.P.O.\n\n MOHANI TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT KULLU H.P.\n\n 36. SH. PRADEEP CHAND S/O SH. GUMAT RAM R/O VILLAGE\n HIRAB P.O SOJHA TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT KULLU H.P. 175123.\n\n 37. SH. PUSHAP RAJ SHRAMA S/O SH. LIKHIT RAM SHARMA\n\n\n R/O VILLAGE BAGGISERY P.O HURLA TEHSIL BHUNTAR DISTT\n KULLU H.P.\n\n 38. SH. YAKESH KUMAR SHARMA S/OSH. RELU RAM SHARMA\n\n\n\n\n R/O VILLAGE THOGI DOGHRI P.O PUJALI TEHSIL BANJAR\n DISTT KULLU H.P. 175123\n\n\n\n\n\n 39. SH. AJAY CHAUHAN S/O SH. CHARAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n DHARDI P.O. PUJALI TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT KULLU H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 175123.\n\n 40. SMT. MEENAKSHI DEVI D/O SH. SHAMSHER SINGH W/0\n SH. BALBIR SINGH. R/O VILLAGE TANDI, P.O CHETHER,\n TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT KULLU H.P.\n\n 41. SMT. SUNITA VIMAL D/O SH. TABE RAM VIMAL W/O SH.\n KHEM CHAND R/O VILLAGE BUSHEHARI TEHSIL BANJAR P.O\n GASHAINI DISTT KULLU H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 316\n\n\n 42. SH. MAHESHWAR SINGH S/O SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH R/O\n VILLAGE CHHET P.O CHEHARI TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT KULLU\n H.P. 175123.\n\n 43. SH. BHIM SAIN S/O SH. LOTTAM RAM R/O VILLAGE\n CHATTARADALA P.O BAZAHARA SUB TEHSIL SAINJ DISTT\n\n\n\n\n .\n KULLU H.P. 175134.\n\n\n\n\n\n 44. SMT. PRABHA DEVI D/O SH. PREM SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n TANDI P.O. MARATHU TEHSIL & DISTT MANDI 175001.\n\n\n\n\n\n 45. SH. LEELA DHAR S/O SH. DURGA DASS R/O VILLAGE\n RENH P.O. BANOGI SUB TEHSIL SAINJ DISTT KULLU\n H.P.175134.\n\n 46. SH. RAVINDER SINGH S/O SH. MADAN SINGH R/O\n\n\n\n\n\n VILLAGE SHAKLA P.O& TEHSIL NANKHARI DISTT SHIMLA\n H.P. 172021.\n\n 47. SMT. SAWARI DEVI W/O SH. SURAT RAM R/O VILLAGE\n\n CHARI P.O & TEHSIL NANKHARI DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 48. SH. SURESH DUTT S/O SH. RAMESH DUTT R/O VILLAGE\n PARSA P. O. LOWER KOTI TEHSIL ROHRUDISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n 171207.\n\n\n 49. SH. JAGDEEP SINGH S/O SH. KHUSHI RAM R/O V. P. O\n KUI TEHSIL ROHRU DISTT SHIMLA H. P. 171207.\n\n 50. SH. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O SH. ROSHAN LAL R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n BASHLA P.O. ARHAL TEHSIL ROHRU DISTT. SHIMLA H. P\n 171223.\n\n\n\n\n\n 51. SH. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SH. ROSHAN LAL SHARMA R/O\n VILLAGE BARLA P.O. KUI TEHSIL ROHRU DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 171207\n\n 52. SH. PREM PRAKASH S/O SH. GARIB DASS R /O VILLAGE\n HINSA P.O. TRILOKNATH SUB-TEHSIL UDAIPUR DISTT\n LAHOUL & SPITTI H.P.\n\n 53. SH. KISHAN LAL S/O SH. RANBIR SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n CHEMBAK PO. MOORING SUB-TEHSIL UDAIPUR DISTT\n LAHOUL & SPITTI H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 317\n\n\n 54. M/S. GUR DEI D/O SH.PURAN DASS V.P.O. TINDI SUB-\n TEHSIL UDAIPUR DISTT LAHOUL & SPITTI H.P.\n\n 55. SH. BHAN CHAND S/O MAN SINGH R/O V.P.O. TINDI SUB-\n TEHSIL UDAIPUR DISTT LAHOUL & SPITTI H.P.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 56. SMT. KISMATI DEVI W/O SH. KUMAR R/O VILLAGE-\n\n\n\n\n\n SHAKLA P.O. NANKHARI DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n 57. ISHWAR SINGH S/O SH. KISHAN LAL R/O VILLAGE\n LAUGHTI P.O SHOLI TEHSIL NANKHARI DISTT SHIMLA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 58. SMT. RAVINA KUMARI THAKUR D/O SH. BUDH RAM\n THAKUR W/O SH. CHAMAN BISHT R/O VILLAGE NAGNI P.O.\n GAHIDHAR TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT KULLU H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 59 SH. THAKUR SINGH S/O SH. MEHAR CHAND R/O\n VILLAGE CHALHEAD P.O. PUJALI TEHSIL BANJAR DISTT\n KULLU H.P.175123.\n\n 60. SH. YOG RAJ S/O SH. BHANI CHAND R/O VILLAGE\n SHOUR P.O PURTHI TEHSIL KILLAR (PANGI) DISTT CHAMBA\n\n H.P\n\n 61. SH. TILAK RAJ SHARMA S/O SH. BISHAMBER NATH\n SHARMA R/O V.P.O REI, PANGI DISTT CHAMBA H.P.\n\n\n\n 62. MS. CHAMPA KUMARI D/O SH. SONI RAM R/O VILLAGE\n HILLOUR P.O. SOHALI TEHSIL PANGI DISTT. CHAMBA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n 63. MS. VIRENDERA KUMARI D/O SH. LEKH RAM R/O\n VILLAGE SHOUR P.O. PURTHI TEHSIL PANGI DISTT. CHAMBA\n\n\n\n\n\n H.P.\n\n 64. SH. YOG RAJ S/O SH. MAHATAM CHAND R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n GUWARI P.O. KUMAR PANGI TEHSIL PANGI DISTT CHAMBA\n H.P.\n\n 65. MS. SANDEEPA D/O SH. DR. SUKHDEV SANKHYAN R/O\n V.P.O RAJPUR TEHSIL PALAMPUR DISTT KANGRA H.P.\n\n 66. SH. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SH. PRITTAM CHAND R/O V.P.O\n BAROH TEHSIL BAROH DISTT KANGRA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 318\n\n\n 67. SH. RAMESH KUMAR S/O SH. HAMIR CHAND R/ V.P.O\n AERLA TEHSIL BAROH DISTT KANGRA H.P.\n\n 68 SH. RAJESH KUMAR BHATTA S/O SH. MAST RAM BHATTA\n R/O VILLAGE AMTRAR P.O SUNERH TEHSIL NAGROTA\n BAGWAN, DISTT KANGRA H.P.\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n 69. SH. AMIT KUMAR S/O SH. SUBHASH CHAND R/O\n VILLAGE UJJAIN SEVKARA, P.O. KANGRA TEHSIL KANGRA\n DISTT KANGRA H.P.176001.\n\n\n\n\n\n 70. SH. VINOD KUMAR S/O LATE SH. JONKI RAMR/O V.P.O\n KASWA PUNNER, TEHSIL PALAMPUR DISTT KANGRA H.P.\n\n 71. SH. KRISHAN KUMAR S/O SH. JAGDISH CHAND R/O V.P.O.\n RAJOANA, (53 MILES) TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n\n KANGRA HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 72. SH. SUDHIR KUMAR S/O LATE SH. PRATAP CHAND R/O\n V.P.O. RAMERH, TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN, DISTRICT\n\n KANGRA HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n 73. SMT. MADHU RANI W/O SH. SUKHDEV SINGH R/O VPO-\n DOHAV TEHSIL-SHAHPUR DISTT.- KANGRA HP PIN 176206\n\n 74. SH. NARESH KUMAR S/O SH. SUBHASH CHAND R/O VPO\n\n\n LOWER DOHAB TEH. SHAHPUR DISTT KANGRA 176206 H.P.\n\n 75. MS. NEENA SAMYAL W/O SH. MANJEET SINGH. R/O VILL.\n BHATECHH P.O THARU TEH. SHAHPUR DISTT.NKANGRA HP\n\n\n\n\n 76. SH. BOBINDER SINGH S/O SH. RAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE\n\n\n\n\n\n BHATECHH PO- THARU TEHSIL- SHAHPUR DISTT. KANGRA\n HP.\n\n\n\n\n\n 77. SH. RAKESH KUMAR S/O SH. OM PRAKASH R/O VPO-\n DOHAV TEHSIL-SHAHPUR DISTT. KANGRA HP PIN 176206\n\n 78. SH. SUGREEV SINGH S/O SH. SARAN DASS R/O VPO-\n DOHAV TEH.- SHAHPUR DISTT. KANGRA HP PIN 176206.\n\n 79. SH. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SH. DINA NATH R/O VILLAGE\n MOTLA PO DHULARA TEH. SIHUNTA DISTT. CHAMBA HP\n 176207\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 319\n\n\n 80. SMT. SEEMA DEVI W/O SH. MANOJ SINGH INSTRUCTOR\n GOVT ITI SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n 81. SMT. KIRAN KUMARI W/O SH. SUBHASH CHAND, V.P.O\n BHALI TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n .\n PRADESH, 176206.\n\n\n\n\n\n 82. SMT. SHASHI SINGH W/O SH. DEVINDER SINGH R/O VPO\n SOLDA TEHSIL JAWALI DISTT. KANGRA HP.\n\n\n\n\n\n 83. SH. SANDEEP SINGH S/O SH. KUSHAL SINGH R/O VPO\n DURGELLA TEH SHAHPUR DISTT KANGRA HP 176206\n\n 84. SH. MUNISH KATOCH S/O SH. PARDHAN CHAND R/O\n V.P.O UPPER KEHRA, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, 176086.\n\n 85. SH. SANJAY KUMAR S/O SH. HARI RAM, R/O V.P.O\n SAROTRI, TEHSIL BAROH, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL\n\n PRADESH. 176037.\n\n 86. SMT. RANJANA DEVI W/O SH. SUBHASH CHAND, VILLAGE\n PUNNER TEHSIL PALAMPUR, HP) 176083.\n\n 87. SH. VIJAY KUMAR S/O SH. LATE SH. RATTAN LAL R/O\n\n\n V.P.O NAGROTA BAGWAN, DISTT. KANGRA (H.P) 176056.\n\n 88. SH. DINESH KUMAR S/O SH. CHUNI LAL R/O VILLAGE\n ABDULLAPUR P.O ZAMANABAD, TEHSIL & DISTT KANGRA\n\n\n\n\n (H.P) 176001.\n\n\n\n\n\n 89. SH BISHAN DASS S/O SH. CHHOTU RAM R/O VPO LUHNA\n TEH BAROH DISTT KANGRA H. P.\n\n\n\n\n\n 90. SH. KAMAL NAIN S/O SH. BIHARI LAL R/O VILLAGE\n SIHOLPURI P.O & TEHSIL SHAHPUR DISTT KANGRA H.P.\n 176206\n\n 91. PIYANKA W/O SH. SHIV SAGAR VILLAGE SADARPUR P.O\n TANDA TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN DISTT KANGRA H.P\n\n 92. SMT LATA THAKUR W/O SH. DHARAM VIR SINGH R/O\n VILLAGE NASHADRA P.O KUFRI TEHSIL PADHAR DISTT\n MANDI H.P.175012.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 320\n\n\n\n 93. ASHA BABY D/O SH. RAM NATH R/O V.P.O NANGAL\n KALAN, TEHSIL HAROLI DISTT UNA H.P.\n .....PETITIONERS\n\n ( BY SH. NEERAJ SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n AND\n\n 1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH IT'S\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA- 171002.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n SHIMLA-171001.\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n 40. CWP NO. 1986 OF 2022\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n 1. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SH.GIRDHARI LAL VILL. AND P.O.\n KOTLI TEH. KOTLI DISTT. MANDI H.P.,AGE 44.\n\n\n\n 2. RITA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SHRI HARI RAM, VILLAGE MON\n POST OFFICE HARDASPURA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT,\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 40.\n\n\n\n\n 3. HARSH KUMAR SON OF SHIV CHARAN, MOHALLA LOWER\n\n\n\n\n\n DHAROG, POST OFFICE CHAMBA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. MANGESH KUMARI DAUGHTER OF LATE SURAT RAM,\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KUFFER-KAIRA, TEHSIL\n REGISTRAR NOHRADHAR, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, AGE 39\n\n 5. MANITA KUMARI WIFE OF SURJEET SINGH, VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE SHERPUR, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 38.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 321\n\n\n 6. CHUNI LAL SON OF SHRI CHINT RAM, VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE SHERPUR, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 50.\n\n 7. CHANDER KALA KUMARI WIFE OF MANOHAR LAL,\n VILLAGE BALARA TIKKARI, POST OFFICE SHARGAON, TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n .\n RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 41.\n\n\n\n\n\n 8. MEHAR SINGH SON OF SHRI GIAN CHAND, VILLAGE\n RUPAIN, POST OFFICE SAINJ. DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH.\n\n\n\n\n\n 9. MUKESH THAKUR SON OF ROSHAN LAL THAKUR,\n VILLAGE BHUNTER, POST OFFICE BHARAI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n\n\n\n\n 10. ROZY DAUGHTER OF SH DALIP SINGH, VILLAGE SIHANA,\n POST OFFICE MARAOG, TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n 11. PREM PAL SON OF NAYAN SINGH, VILLAGE BAGNA, POST\n OFFICE HABBAN, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 44.\n\n 12. BALVINDER SINGH SON OF MEHAR SINGH, VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE BUSAL, TEHSIL BAROH, DISTRICT\n\n\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 44.\n\n 13. ROOP SINGH SON OF KHAZANA RAM, VILLAGE\n KHANYOUR, POST OFFICE DHAWAL, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n\n\n\n\n 14. SUDHIR KUMAR SON OF VYAS DEV, VILLAGE AND POST\n OFFICE SUNNI, TEHSIL BAROH, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 39.\n\n\n\n\n\n 15. VIJAY SINGH SON OF BALDEV SINGH, VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE JASSAI, TEHSIL BAROH, DISTRICT KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 39.\n\n 16. KEWAL KRISHAN SON OF DESH RAJ, VILLAGE\n CHAMIYAN, POST OFFICE BATHRI, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE,\n DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 322\n\n\n 17. MOHINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI SALO RAM, VILLAGE\n ADHI, POST OFFICE BATHRI, TEHSIL DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT\n CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n 18. HEM LATA DAUGHTER OF KRISHAN SINGH, VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE SEWRA CHANDI, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n .\n SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 41.\n\n\n\n\n\n 19. MANHER SHARMA SON OF MOTI LAL SHARMA, VILLAGE\n UPPER SULTANPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT, KULLU,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 44.\n\n\n\n\n\n 20. CHANDRA VATI WIFE OF CHANDER SINGH, VILLAGE\n BHATHA, POST OFFICE DEVDHAR, TEHSIL CHACHIAN, POST\n OFFICE CHHATRARI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT, CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH. AGE 43.\n\n\n\n\n\n 21. ARCHNA KUMARI WIFE OF PUSHPENDER THAKUR, WAD\n NO.5, NEAR GMSSS RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH. AGE 43.\n\n 22. KIRAN KUMARI WIFE OF TAPENDER SINGH, VILLAGE\n\n PAIN KUFFER, POST OFFICE TAPROLI, TEHSIL RAJGARH,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 44.\n\n 23. AMAN DEVI SHARMA WIFE OF GANESH PAL LATH,\n\n\n VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DHUSARA, TEHSIL AMB,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 45.\n\n 24. SHUBHI LATH WIFE OF ANUP KUMAR, VILLAGE POLIAN\n\n\n\n\n PURHITAN, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, AGE 39.\n\n\n\n\n\n 25. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF MARU RAM, VILLAGE CHAK, POST\n OFFICE THATHAL, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n\n\n\n PRADESH, AGE 48.\n\n 26. MANJU BALA WIFE OF SHRI DILBAG SINGH, VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE LADOLI, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 47.\n\n 27. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF TILAK RAJ JASWAL, PRESENTLY\n POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH AT GMSSS TAKOLI AGE 41.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 323\n\n\n 28. BRIJ MOHAN SON OF YOGINDER PAL, VILLAGE\n SUNDHARI, POST OFFICE CHAKSARAI, TEHSIL AMB,\n DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 44.\n\n 29. SANDEEP KUMAR SON OF SHRI BHAJAN SINGH, VILLAGE\n BHALOH, POST BATUHI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 41.\n\n\n\n\n\n 30. SUKH DEV SON OF KISHAN CHAND, VILLAGE GATHRUN,\n POST OFFICE RAPOH MISSRAN, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 46.\n\n\n\n\n\n 31. DAYA KUMARI DUTTA WIFE OF ANUP DUTTA, VILLAGE\n KALGAON, POST OFFICE PUJARLI, NO.2, TEHSIL ROHRU,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 40.\n\n\n\n\n\n 32. RAVIN KUMAR SON OF PYARE LAL, VILLAGE RERA, POST\n OFFICE JAHOO, TEHSIL NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 38.\n\n 33. ANIL KUMAR SON OF DEV RAJ, VILLAGE DHALTI, POST\n OFFICE JAROD, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n 34. SUJEETA THAKUR, DAUGHTER OF PYARE LAL THAKUR,\n VILLAGE BAI, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 48.\n\n 35. GAURI PRASAD SON OF LATE NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT\n OF VILLAGE BAZA, POST OFFICE JAROL SUB TEHSIL\n\n\n\n\n KOTGARH, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 52.\n\n\n\n\n\n 36. CHETAN SON OF SHRI UMA NAND, VILLAGE\n KAREWATHI, POST OFFICE PHARAL, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n\n\n\n\n 37. SANJEEV DAGOTRA SON OF CHUNI LAL, VILLAGE\n ABDULLAPUR POST OFFICE ZAMANABAD, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n 38. ANUPAMA WIFE OF SHRI RAJESH CHANDER, VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE RAIT, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KANGRA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 37.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 324\n\n\n 39. GOPAL KUMAR, SON OF MOOL CHAND, VILLAGE RUNJH\n POST OFFICE KATINDHI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 47.\n\n 40 RAJEEV KUMAR SON OF PAYAR SINGH, VILLAGE\n ABDULLAPUR POST OFFICE ZAMANABAD, TEHSIL AND\n\n\n\n\n .\n DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 43.\n\n\n\n\n\n 41. SUDESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI ROOP SINGH, VILLAGE\n AND POST OFFICE ZAMANABAD, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 48.\n\n\n\n\n\n 42. KAPIL MOHAN SON OF HET RAM, VILLAGE MANWA,\n POST OFFICE SANOA, SUB TEHSIL PAJHOTA, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 36.\n\n\n\n\n\n 43. DINESH KUMAR SON OF HARI SINGH, VILLAGE\n KOTIDHAR, POST OFFICE BHUTTI, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 47.\n\n 44. ADARSH KUMAR SON OF RANDEEP SINGH, VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE KOTLA BANGI, SUB TEHSIL PAJHOTA,\n\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n 45. RAMESH CHAND SON OF SHRI LAXMI NAND, VILLAGE\n MARDHAR, POST OFFICE SHILAROO, TEHSIL THEOG,\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 46.\n\n 46. SANJAY BHAIK SON OF JOGINDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF\n VILLAGE BARERA, POST OFFICE NAULA, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 46.\n\n\n\n\n\n 47. INDER SINGH SON OF GIRDHARI LAL, VILLAGE\n SUKKIBAIN, POST OFFICE SUKKIBAIN, TEHSIL CHACHIAN,\n POST OFFICE CHHATRARI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT, CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 52.\n\n 48. ASRAF ALI KHAN SON OF SAWAR ALI KHAN, VILLAGE\n JUTHED, POST OFFICE SERI KOTHI, TEHSIL CHURAH,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 42.\n\n 49. SANDEEP SON OF TAPENDER SINGH SON OF VILLAGE\n DHAMLA, POST OFFICE SANORA, SUB TEHSIL PAJHOTA,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 39.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 325\n\n\n 50. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF NAIN SINGH, VILLAGE KUNI\n SER, POST OFFICE KOTLA BANGI, SUB TEHSIL PAJHOTA,\n DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n 51. OM PRAKASH SON OF SISU RAM, VILLAGE AND POST\n OFFICE KHARGA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n\n\n\n\n 52. GIAN PRAKASH SON OF REVAT RAM, VILLAGE AND POST\n OFFICE KARARSU, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL\n PRADESH, AGE 41.\n\n\n\n\n\n 53. PINKI WIFE OF SURESH KUMAR, VILLAGE AND POST\n OFFICE SERI KOTHI, TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 45.\n\n\n\n\n\n 54. SAROJ KUMARI WIFE OF SHASHI KANT, VILLAGE\n GAHAR, POST OFFICE PANJGAIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 43.\n\n 55. GAGAN CHAUHAN SON OF UMA NAND, VILLAGE\n KREWATHI, POST OFFICE PHARAL, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 44.\n\n 56. SURINDER SINGH SON OF RD KAPOOR, VILLAGE\n DALAHAR, POST OFFICE MADRAWANI, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 51.\n\n 57. ATUL SIRKECK SON OF JAGJIT SINGH, VILLAGE DALAN,\n POST OFFICE VIRGARH, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 45.\n\n\n\n\n\n 58. BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF RAMA NAND, VILLAGE\n KAWANOO, POST OFFICE JAROL, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 46.\n\n\n\n\n\n 59. CHETNA PATHAK DAUGHTER OF SHRI DHANI RAM\n PATHAK, VILLAGE KUFRI, POST OFFICE MANJHU, TEHSIL\n ARKI. DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 33.\n\n 60. AMIT SON OF HOSHYAR CHAND, VILLAGE SHATHLA, POST\n OFFICE VIRGARH, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 46.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 326\n\n\n 61. RIGAN MEHTA SON OF AMIN CHAND MEHTA, VILLAGE\n KAWANOO, POST OFFICE BATARI, JAROL, SUB TEHSIL\n KOTGARH, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 41.\n\n 62. ANITA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF BAJIRU RAM, VILLAGE AND\n POST OFFICE DIGHAL, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n .\n HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 42.\n\n\n\n\n\n 63. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SHRI BANSI LAL, VILLAGE\n BHARGAON, POST OFFICE BHUTTI, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH 45.\n\n\n\n\n\n 64. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF AMARU, VILLAGE MALELA, POST\n OFFICE MOURA, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 43.\n\n\n\n\n\n 65. SHER SINGH SON OF SHRI BARFU, VILLAGE\n JHAMTAHAR, POST OFFICE BOCHING, TEHSIL PADHAR,\n DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 52.\n\n 66. SANEJEV KUMAR NEGI SON OF BANKA RAM NEGI..\n VILLAGE KUNGAL, POST OFFICE KUNGAL BALTI, TEHSIL\n\n NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 44.\n\n 67. ANJANA DAUGHTER OF GULAB SINGH, VILLAGE KUNGAL\n BALTI, TEHSIL NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL\n\n\n PRADESH, AGE 45.\n\n 68. MAHENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI KISHORI LAL, VILLAGE\n JABALDA, POST OFFICE DANAWALI, TEHSIL NANKHARI,\n\n\n\n\n DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGE 39.\n\n\n\n\n\n 69. BEENA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF BALI RAM, VILLAGE\n SHAKLA, POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NANKHARI DISTRICT\n SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 42.\n\n\n\n\n\n 70 SARITA GORIA DAUGHTER OF SHRI KESHAV RAM,\n VILLAGE BHUJJAW (VIA BALAI) TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT\n SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGE 48.\n\n 71. SHISHU PAL S/O LT. SH. BHAGWAN DASS R/O VILL.\n BATWARI, TEH. ROHRU DISTT. SHIMLA H.P. AGE 42.\n\n 72. HIMMAT SINGH S/O SH. BALDEV SINGH VILL. PUNAN, P.O.\n AND NANKHARI DISTT. SHIMLA H.P. AGE 46.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 327\n\n\n\n 73. AJAY KUMAR S/O SH. RAMESH CHAND VILL. RUNAN,\n POST OFFICE AND TEHSIL NANKHARI DISTT.SHIMLA H.P.\n AGE 44.\n\n 74. HEMRAJ S/O SH. RUMAL SINGH VILL. SHAKLA P.O. AND\n\n\n\n\n .\n TEH. NANKHARI SHIMLA H.P., AGE 39.\n\n\n\n\n\n 75. MOHAN SINGH S/O SH. MANGAL SINGH VILL. DHUGGE\n P.O. KUNGRAT TEH. HAROLI DISTT UNA H.P., AGE 42\n\n\n\n\n\n 76. SUNIL SINGH S/O SH. JOGINDER SINGH V.P.O. GHEEN\n TEH. BAROH DISTT. KANGRA H.P., AGE 42.\n\n 77. SUNEEL KUMAR S/O SH. KISHORI LAL VILL. BABAGRU\n P.O. MAJHEEN TEH. MANDUN DISTT. KANGRA H.P. AGE 41.\n\n\n r to\n 78. DOLI RANA W/O MANJEET SINGH V.P.O. SURI TEH. AND\n DISTT. UNA H.P. AGE 41.\n\n 79. VIJAY KUMARI W/O SH. SHAMSHER SINGH R/O VILL.\n GADHOL P.O. CHURAWADHAR TEH. RAJGARH, DISTT.\n\n SIRMOUR H.P., AGE 40.\n\n 80. SURESH KUMAR S/O SH. VIDYA DUTT. VILL. LANA\n MIUNTA P.O. CHHAPANG TEH. PACHHAD DISTT. SIRMOUR\n\n\n H.P. AGE 40.\n\n 81. REETA D/O SH. SUNDER SINGH W/O SH. NAGENDER\n CHANDAN VILL. KOTLA MANGAN P.O. KATHLI BHARAN TEH.\n\n\n\n\n RAJGARH DISTT. SIRMOUR H.P. AGE 47.\n\n\n\n\n\n 82. YOG RAJ S/O SH. LAIQ RAM R/O VILL. NEHRA P.O. BAHLI\n TEH. RAMPUR DISTT. SHIMLA H.P., AGE 40.\n\n\n\n\n\n 83. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SH. KARAM CHAND VILL. CHURAG\n P.O. CHUNG TEH. KARSOG DISTT. MANDI H.P., AGE 46.\n\n 84. YASHWANT KUMAR S/O SH. INDER RAJ SHARMA V.P.O.\n PANGNA TEH. (SUB) PANGNAJ DISTT. MANDI H.P., AGE 43.\n\n 85. LATA THAKUR W/O DHARAM VIR SINGH R/O VILL.\n NASHADHRA P.O. KUFRI TEH. PADHAR DISTT. MANDI H.P.\n AGE 44.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 328\n\n\n 86. SANT RAM W/O SH. TARA CHAND VILL. BEHAL P.O.\n PAIRI TEH BALH DISTT MANDI H.P., AGE 46.\n\n 87. GIRDHARI LAL S/O SH. JAI RAM VILL. KOON P.O. KOT\n TUNGAL TEH KOTLI DISTT. MANDI H.P. AG 41.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 88. OM PRAKASH S/O SH. PARAM DEV VILL. AND\n\n\n\n\n\n P.O..SALETAR DISTT MANDI H.P.,AGE 37.\n\n 89. CHANDRA DEVI W/O DESH RAJ VILL. BADHU P.O.\n KHLANOO TEH KOTLI DISTT MANDI H.P., AGE 41.\n\n\n\n\n\n 90. KAUNAL SINGH S/O SH. NARPAT RAM VILL. DHAWAN\n SARI P.O. KOT TUNGAL TEHSIL KOTI DISTT. MANDI H.P.,AGE\n 39.\n\n\n\n\n\n 91. KULDEEP SINGH S/O LAL SINGH VILL TANDI\n P.O.TANDGALOO DISTT MANDI H.P., AGE 43.\n\n 92. PRAMILA DEVI D/O SH. AMAR SINGH VILL. RAKHOTA\n\n P.O. GANNAR TEH. SARAGHAT DISTT. MANDI, AGE 38.\n\n 93. PRATAP CHAND S/O SH. PURAN SINGH VILL. AND P.O.\n KOT TUNGAL TEH. KOTLI DISTT. MANDI, H.P., AGE 40.\n\n 94. KALPNA D/O SH. N.S. PANWAR W/O CHANDER SHEKHAR\n\n\n DER TO REGISTRAR THAKUR R/O VILL. NANU BAGORIA P.O.\n DIMBER TEH. RAJGHER DISTT. SIRMOUR H.P., AGE 44.\n\n 95. RAMESH CHAND S/O SH. INDER DUTT R/O VILL. DELAG\n\n\n\n\n P.O. BAKHALAG TEH. ARKI DISTT. H.P., AGE 44.\n\n\n\n\n\n 96. MAMTA THAKUR W/O SH. SANDEEP THAKUR VILL.\n BAUAT KASOL TEH. SADAR DISTT. BILASPUR H.P., AGE 41.\n\n\n\n\n\n 97. ANITA SHARMA W/O SH. ROSHAN LAL SHARMA VILL.\n SERI P.O. BAKHALAG TEH. ARKI DISTT. SOLAN H.P., AGE 46.\n\n 98. ANU DEVI W/O RAJESH KUMAR V.P.O KASBA KOTLA\n TEH. JASWAN DISTRICT KANGRA H.P., AGE 43.\n\n 99. ANJANA KUMARI W/O VIJENDER SINGH KHAI ROAD\n RAJGARH DISTT SIRMOUR H.P, AGE 42.\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 329\n\n\n 100. RAM PAL S/O SH. PIRTHI CHAND R/O VPO BEETAN\n TEHSIL HAROLI DISTT UNA HP., AGE 44.\n\n 101. VEENA KUMARI W/O SH. JAGDISH CHAND R/O VILLAGE\n SAMKHER TEHSIL JAWALI DISTT KANGRA H.P., AGE 53.\n\n\n\n\n .\n 102. MONIKA DEVI W/O SH. JAGDEEP R/O NEAR SHIV\n\n\n\n\n\n MANDIR BHAWAN ROAD RAJGARH P.O RAJGARH TEHSIL\n RAJGARH DISTT SIRMAUR H.P., AGE 36.\n\n 103. AJAY KALIA SON OF JANAK RAJ KALIA, KALIA NIWAS,\n\n\n\n\n\n FARM SCIENTISTS COLONY, KHUNDIDHAR, RAJGARH ROAD,\n SOLAN H.P., AGE 49.\n\n 104. RAMESH CHAND S/O LAL DASS V.P.O DHAUGI TEHSIL\n SAINJ DISTRICT KULLU H.P., AGE 46.\n\n\n\n H.P., AGE 39.\n r to\n 105. PRAMILA DEVI W/O MR. SURESH KUMAR R/O VILLAGE\n PUNAN P.O. NANKHARI TEHSIL NANKHARI DISTT SHIMLA\n\n\n ( BY SH. NEERAJ SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n ..PETITIONERS\n\n AND\n\n 1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH IT'S\n\n\n PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT\n OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SECRETARIAT SHIMLA- 171002.\n\n 2. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n\n\n\n\n SHIMLA-171001.\n ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.\n ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL.)\n\n\n\n\n\n RESERVED ON: 02.08.2022\n\n DECIDED ON: 31.08.2022\n\n\n These petitions coming on for pronouncement of order this\n\n day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, passed the following:\n\n\n\n\n ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS\n 330\n\n\n ORDERBy way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayed for\n\n grant of benefit of regularization of their services w.e.f. 1.4.2018..Since common questions of facts and law are involved, all these\n\n\n\n\n\n petitions are being decided by a common judgment.Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are as\n\n\n\n\n\n under:1. PETITIONER'S CASE(i) The facts in CWP 342 of 2021 are being\n considered hereunder for the sake of precision\n and also to avoid prolixity.(ii)\n r Petitioners were appointed in 2006-07 against\n\n the posts of Lecturers School Cadre/ Lecturer\n School (New)/ PGTs under a scheme formulated\n by the State Government known as Grant-in-aid\n\n\n\n to Parent Teachers Association Rules 2006 (for\n short, '2006 Rules').(iii) State Government vide Notification dated\n 16.08.2013 decided to take over of services of\n\n\n\n\n\n petitioners on contract basis. Such decision\n became subject matter of challenge through Civil\n\n\n\n\n\n Writ Petitions filed before this Court. However,\n the controversy was set at rest by Judgment\n dated 9.12.2014 passed by a Division Bench of\n this Court ruling in favour of Government's\n decision and thereafter way was cleared for\n taking over of services of teachers on contract\n basis.::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS331(iv) Services of petitioners were eventually taken\n over on contract basis vide orders dated\n 3.1.2015, 7.1.2015 and 15.1.2015.(v) On 11.5.2018 State Government issued\n\n\n\n\n .Notification directing regularisation of all its\n\n\n\n\n\n contract employees who had completed 3 years\n contract service as on 31.3.2018. Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n\n though also were eligible for regularisation\n having rendered three years contract service as\n on 31.3.2018, but were not regularised\n purportedly for the reason that appeals against\n\n\n\n\n\n the judgment dated 9.12.2014 were pending\n before Hon'ble Supreme court.(vi) Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeals\n\n against judgment dated 9.12.2014 of this Court\n\n vide its judgment dated 17.4.2020 [reported in\n (2020) 5 SCC 732]. Petitioners submitted their\n detailed representation to the respondents.(vii) Services of petitioners were regularised w.e.f.20.8.2020 vide orders dated 5.8.2020.2. PETITIONER'S GRIEVANCE\n\n\n\n\n\n Petitioners claim regularisation w.e.f. 1.4.2018 in\n\n pursuance to decision of the Government dated 11.5.2018 alleging\n\n\n\n\n\n as under:(a) Discrimination with all other contract\n employees who got the benefit of regularisation\n from 1.4.2018 in pursuance to Government\n decision dated 11.5.2018 and consequent\n violation ofArticles 14of 16 of the constitution.::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS332(b) Arbitrary denial of rights of petitioners by\n respondents taking shelter of the pendency of\n appeals before the Supreme Court.(c) Arbitrary fixation of date of regularisation as\n\n\n\n\n .20.8.2020 in the case of petitioners despite\n\n\n\n\n\n dismissal of appeals by the Supreme Court.3. RESPONDENT'S STAND AND JUSTIFICATION\n\n\n\n\n\n From the initial reply of respondents and their\n\n supplementary affidavits available on record following defences can\n\n be culled out:(a)(b)\n r to\n PTA provided teachers were not regularised due\n to pendency of SLP 1426 of 2015.The appointment of PTA lecturers was not in\n\n accordance with R & P Rules. Their initial\n appointment was under a Policy, whereas other\n lecturers appointed by the Government on\n\n\n contract basis were recruited as per R & P Rules\n through State Service Commission.(c) Though the Supreme Court and High Court had\n\n\n\n\n observed the initial appointments of petitioners\n\n\n\n\n\n under the 2006 Police as legal but there were no\n directions to regularise their services.(d) State has the power to take conscious decisions\n which cannot be interfered with.(e) The mode and purpose of appointment of PTA\n teachers was different, their engagement was\n made for particular school by the PTA of the\n School that too as a stop gap arrangement,::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS333whereas appointment of others was made\n through State Service Commission.(f) The regularisation cannot be claimed as matter\n of right from a particular date. Conscious\n\n\n\n\n .decision is taken by the Government regarding\n\n\n\n\n\n regularisation and thereafter the regularisation\n is made from a particular date as decided.(g) In addition, it has also been contended at the\n stage of hearing that out of the teachers\n appointed under 2006 rules some were taken\n over on contract and some remained, therefore,\n\n\n\n\n\n they being a homogeneous class could not be\n discriminated inter-se.4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have\n\n\n also gone through the documents on file.5. In the nature of controversy, we deem it necessary to\n\n advert to certain background facts. The 2006 Rules were framed to\n\n\n\n achieve one of the objectives of PTA to make arrangement for\n\n\n\n\n teachers etc. when there is shortage of staff in the institution on\n\n temporary basis. Some relevant clauses of 2006 Rules are extracted\n\n\n\n\n\n as under:3. Extent of Application: The provisions of these\n Rules shall be applicable to determine the\n eligibility and the quantum of grant-in-aid and\n release thereof to PTAs who make available\n teachers to an educational institution for the\n purpose of imparting education to its students.::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS3346. Limit of Grant: The number of teachers in a\n subject in respect of whom grant may be given\n shall not exceed the number of posts in the subject\n which are vacant in an educational institution..7. Educational Qualification: Grant-in-aid to a\n\n\n\n\n\n PTA shall not be admissible in respect of a teacher\n made available by it who does not fulfill the\n\n\n\n\n\n educational qualification fixed by the Government\n in respect of posts under it for teaching the same\n subject/classes.6. Two things are abundantly clear from above provisions\n\n first, that the policy authorised PTAs to engage teachers with\n\n requisite qualifications prescribed by the Government in case of\n\n need against vacant posts and second the promise to pay grant-in-aid to PTAs for sustaining services of such engaged teachers was\n\n\n extended.7. It was in this background that petitioners were\n\n\n\n\n appointed by PTAs and were paid their respective emoluments from\n\n\n\n\n\n grant-in-aid provided by the State Government. Though no\n\n permanency was attached to such employment of petitioner, yet\n\n\n\n\n\n they were allowed to continue as teachers under 2006 Rules for\n\n years together without making regular appointments against vacant\n\n posts.8. Government then took a conscious decision to take over\n\n the services of all such PTA-GIA employed teachers who had::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS335completed seven years of continuous service. Accordingly, services\n\n of petitioners were taken on Government contracts in January 2015.Noticeably, this decision of State Government was unsuccessfully\n\n\n\n\n .challenged by certain private persons before this court and then the\n\n\n\n\n\n Supreme Court. It is important to notice that at that stage State\n\n Government justified and supported its decision by emphasizing its\n\n\n\n\n\n need and importance. In one of the petitions which laid challenge to\n\n above stated decision of the Government being CWP 7728 of 2013\n\n\n\n\n\n the State Government by way of an affidavit submitted as under:"13. That it is relevant to submit that in case regular\n recruitments were made in the teaching sector the\n\n State Government would not have been in a position\n\n to maintain Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) as maximum\n part of financial resources would have been\n consumed in meeting the salary component of\n\n\n\n Regular teachers .......14. That with the passage of time the services of\n\n\n\n\n PTA and GIA, Para Teachers and PAT had to be\n continued as their engagement had obtaining\n\n\n\n\n\n desired results as the number of Schools had also\n drastically increased and the State was also facing\n\n\n\n\n\n financial constraints to engage regular teachers."9. In the context of issue in hand it cannot be ignored that\n\n since many years now, contract basis has been included as one of\n\n modes of recruitment by the State Government in many of its\n\n services by suitably amending the relevant R & P Rules. Noticeably,::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS336no separate cadre of contract employees has been created. These\n\n appointments are made against existing sanctioned cadre strength\n\n of regular posts. In almost all the cases of initial contract\n\n\n\n\n .employment, the services of all such employees are being\n\n\n\n\n\n regularised after some span of time and for that purpose the State\n\n Government has been bringing into being different policies from\n\n\n\n\n\n time to time. The reasons obviously are financial constraints\n\n projected by the State Government vis-a-vis its constitutional and\n\n\n\n\n\n legal obligation to provide education to its citizens, as is also evident\n\n from one such admission on its part, as noticed above. How far such\n\n a stand of the State Government is legal or permissible is not being\n\n gone into by us in the instant case for the reason neither such\n\n proposition is before us for adjudication nor do we find necessary\n\n\n factual foundation herein. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the\n\n services of petitioners were taken on contract in the first instance\n\n\n\n\n and were subsequently regularised w.e.f. 20.8.2020.10. In above noticed circumstances, the question before us\n\n is whether discriminating petitioners with other contract employees\n\n\n\n\n\n in terms of implementation of Notification dated 11.05.2018 is\n\n legally permissible?11. Respondents have asserted with vehemence that the\n\n PTA-GIA teachers were not equal to other contract employees of the\n\n State Government as their respective mode and purpose of::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS337appointment were different. It has also been asserted that they\n\n formed a class within themselves and were not comparable to other\n\n contract employees who were appointed in accordance with R & P\n\n\n\n\n .Rules. In support of such contention respondents have placed\n\n\n\n\n\n reliance on following excerpts of the judgments passed by Supreme\n\n Court in support of its stand justifying different treatment to\n\n\n\n\n\n petitioners:Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India, (1991) 2\n\n\n\n\n\n SCC 48 :8. As regards the right to equality guaranteed underArticle 14the position is well settled that the said right\n\n ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is to\n\n protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory\n treatment. It means that all persons similarly\n circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges\n\n\n conferred and liabilities imposed. Conversely\n discrimination may result if persons dissimilarly situate\n are treated equally. Even amongst persons similarly\n\n\n\n\n situate differential treatment would be permissible\n\n\n\n\n\n between one class and the other. In that event it is\n necessary that the differential treatment should be\n founded on an intelligible differentia which\n\n\n\n\n\n distinguishes persons or things that are grouped\n together from others left out of the group and that\n differentia must have a rational relation to the object\n sought to be achieved by the statute in question.State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty, (2013) 7\n SCC 595 :::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS33834. Further, as employees appointed from different\n sources, after their appointment were treated alike for\n the purpose of superannuation under Regulation 31,\n subsequently solely on the basis of source of recruitment\n\n\n\n\n .no discrimination can be made and differential\n treatment would not be permissible in the matter of\n condition of service, including the age of\n\n\n\n\n\n superannuation, in absence of an intelligible differentia\n distinguishing them from each other. We therefore hold\n that the High Court by the impugned judgment\n [Dayanand Chakrawarty v. State of U.P., (2010) 6 All LJ\n\n\n\n\n\n 1] rightly declared the 2005 Regulations\n unconstitutional and ultra viresArticle 14of the\n Constitution of India.T. Devadasan v. Union of India, (1964) 4 SCR 680 :13. It seems to us that the argument based uponArticle\n 14of the Constitution in fact turns on the same\n\n\n\n considerations as the argument thatArticle 16(1)is\n infringed by the aforesaid rule. WhatArticle 14provides\n\n\n\n\n is that the State shall not deny to any person equality\n before the law or the equal protection of the laws within\n\n\n\n\n\n the territory of India. What is meant by equality in this\n article is, equality amongst equals. It does not provide\n\n\n\n\n\n that what is aimed at is an absolute equality of\n treatment to all persons in utter disregard in every\n conceivable circumstance of the differences such as age,\n sex, education and so on and so forth as may be found\n amongst people in general. Indeed, while the aim of this\n article is to ensure that invidious distinction or arbitrary\n discrimination shall not be made by the State between\n a citizen and a citizen who answer the same description::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS339and the differences which may obtain between them are\n of no relevance for the purpose of applying a particular\n law reasonable classification is permissible. It does not\n mean anything more.12. We are not persuaded by above noted submissions made\n\n\n\n\n .on behalf of respondents. A coordinate Bench of this Court has\n\n already upheld the legality and validity of initial appointment of\n\n\n\n\n\n petitioners herein and similarly placed persons in following terms\n\n while deciding CWP 6916 of 2011 Pankaj Kumar Vs State of\n\n\n\n\n\n Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matter vide\n\n judgment dated 9.12.2014 by holding as under:"22. The Apex Court in the case titled as University of\n\n Rajasthan and Anr. Versus Prem Lata Aggarwal,\n\n reported in 2013 AIR SCW 989, held that an\n appointment by stop-gap arrangement cannot be\n regularised, but, at the same time, laid down the\n\n\n principle that if appointments are made under a\n particular scheme and continued for pretty long time, are\n entitled to regularisation in terms of policy.........23. The teachers-appellants/writ respondents were not\n\n\n\n\n\n appointed as stop-gap arrangement, thus, are entitled to\n regularisation in terms of policy made by the\n Government while applying the ratio of judgment\n\n\n\n\n\n (supra)"13. Further, while deciding the appeal against the aforesaid\n\n judgment dated 9.12.2014, Supreme Court inChander Mohan\n\n Negi v. State of H.P., (2020) 5 SCC 732 observed as under:::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS340"12. Even with regard to the Para Teachers Policy under\n which various category of Teachers were appointed in\n the year 2003 pursuant to policy notified on 17-9-2003\n it is clear from the record placed before this Court that\n all the persons who were recruited as Para Teachers\n\n\n\n\n .were fully qualified as per the Recruitment and\n Promotion Rules i.e. the Himachal Pradesh Education\n Department Class III (School and Inspection Cadre)\n\n\n\n\n\n Service Rules, 1973. In view of the stand of the State\n that such policy was necessitated due to large number\n of vacant posts which have arisen year after year and\n\n\n\n\n\n which could not be filled since the State Selection\n Subordinate Board, Hamirpur, which was responsible\n for the selection of Teachers had come under a cloud and\n the selection process had come to a halt, such\n\n appointments cannot be rendered as illegal. Such aspect\n\n is also evident from the policy itself. Even in other\n category of the Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teacher\n Association Rules, all Teachers appointed under the\n\n\n Scheme fulfil the educational qualifications prescribed in\n the Rules. For such kind of Teachers, the Cabinet has\n taken decision to take over the Teachers on contract\n\n\n\n\n basis after completion of eight years of service which\n\n\n\n\n\n period was later reduced to seven years. It is also\n brought to our notice during the course of arguments that\n out of the total 6799 Teachers, 5017 Teachers were\n\n\n\n\n\n already taken over on contract basis by the State\n Government and only 1782 could not be taken over in\n view of the interim orders passed by this Court.13. It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the\n Government, there was a condition that such appointees\n should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the\n same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS341regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the\n requirement of the State, their services were extended\n from time to time and now all the appointees have\n completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of\n the appointed Teachers under the various schemes,\n\n\n\n\n .benefit was already extended and some left over\n candidates were denied on account of interim orders\n passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant\n\n\n\n\n\n Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have\n completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying\n Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT\n\n\n\n\n\n certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of\n the Himachal Pradesh Education Code, 1985. The\n judgments relied on by learned counsel Shri Prashant\n Bhushan also would not render any assistance to the\n\n case of the appellants herein for the reason that there\n\n was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the\n appellants in approaching the High Court and further\n having regard to explanation offered by the State about\n\n\n the need of framing such policies to meet the immediate\n requirement to fill up single teacher schools which were\n vacant for a very long time, having regard to\n\n\n\n\n topographical conditions, which is not even controverted\n\n\n\n\n\n by way of any rejoinder before the High Court. In such\n view of the matter, taking the totality of peculiar\n circumstances of these cases, we are of the view that\n\n\n\n\n\n the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied\n on cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All\n the appointed candidates are working for the meagre\n salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the\n Government. Except the vague submission that such\n schemes were framed only to make backdoor entries,\n there is no material placed on record to buttress such::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS342submission. Further it is also to be noted that though\n such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody\n has questioned such policies and appointments up to\n 2012 and 2013. The writ petition i.e. CWP No. 3303 of\n 2012-A was filed in the year 2012 without even\n\n\n\n\n .impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the\n writ petition, there was no rejoinder filed by the writ\n petitioners disputing the averments of the State as\n\n\n\n\n\n stated in the reply-affidavit. Having regard to the nature\n of such appointments, appointments made as per\n policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to\n\n\n\n\n\n material placed before this Court and having regard to\n reasons recorded in the impugned order [Pankaj\n Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] by\n the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made\n\n out to interfere with the impugned judgment [Pankaj\n\n Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] of\n the High Court."14. Thus, the initial appointment of petitioners being under\n\n\n\n 2006 policy with requisite qualifications and petitioners having put\n\n\n\n\n in sufficient numbers of years of service, the step of the State\n\n Government to take their services on contract was a perfectly legal\n\n\n\n\n\n measure. Once their services were taken on contract, petitioners\n\n\n\n\n\n came at-par with those employees who were recruited on contract\n\n basis under the relevant R & P Rules. Employment on contract being\n\n only a mode of recruitment, no distinction could be drawn between\n\n the petitioners, who were taken on contract after rendering seven\n\n years' service as PTA-GIA teachers and the employees whose initial::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS343recruitment itself was on contract basis under the relevant R & P\n\n Rules. The distinction now drawn between these two categories by\n\n respondents on the ground that the latter were recruited though\n\n\n\n\n .State Service Commission, whereas former through PTA-GIA is\n\n\n\n\n\n clearly misplaced. In both the cases the incumbents hold requisite\n\n qualification. The recruitment in either of the cases is in terms of\n\n\n\n\n\n apposite policies/rules. Thus, the given facts and circumstances of\n\n the case do not suggest any intelligible differentia on the basis of\n\n\n\n\n\n which respondents have sought to distinguish petitioners from\n\n other contract employees of the State Government and further there\n\n is total absence of any rational in relation to the object sought to be\n\n achieved.15. The other ground pleaded by respondents justifying\n\n\n regularisation of petitioners from a subsequent date is the pendency\n\n of litigations, as detailed above. Such ground deserves to be rejected\n\n\n\n\n for the reasons firstly, that the litigation was not at the instance of\n\n\n\n\n\n petitioners and secondly, that even the stand of respondents\n\n herein, in the entire said litigation, was not adversarial to the case\n\n\n\n\n\n of petitioners. Petitioners cannot be penalized without any fault or\n\n default on their part.16. The respondents have further contended that the State\n\n Government has absolute discretion to decide on its policy and as\n\n such no fault can be found in its decision to grant benefit of::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS344regularisation to petitioner w.e.f. 20.8.2020. In support of its\n\n contention reliance has been placed on following excerpts from the\n\n judgments passed by the Supreme Court:.Govt. of A.P. v. N. Subbarayudu, (2008) 14 SCC 702 :5. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held\n that the cut-off date is fixed by the executive authority\n\n\n\n\n\n keeping in view the economic conditions, financial\n constraints and many other administrative and other at\n tending circumstances. This Court is also of the view\n\n\n\n\n\n that fixing cut-off dates is within the domain of the\n executive authority and the court should not normally\n interfere with the fixation of cut-off date by the\n executive authority unless such order appears to be on\n\n the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary.6. No doubt inD.S. Nakara v. Union of India[(1983) 1\n SCC 305 this Court had struck down the cut-off date\n in connection with the demand of pension.However, in\n\n\n subsequent decisions this Court has considerably\n watered down the rigid view taken inNakaracase [(1983) 1 SCC 305 as observed in para 29 of the\n\n\n\n\n decision of this Court inState of Punjab v. Amar Nath\n\n\n\n\n\n Goyal(2005) 6 SCC 754 .7. There may be various considerations in the mind of\n\n\n\n\n\n the executive authorities due to which a particular cut-off date has been fixed. These considerations can be\n financial, administrative or other considerations. The\n court must exercise judicial restraint and must\n ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the\n cut-off date. The Government must be left with some\n leeway and free play at the joints in this connection.::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS3458. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to\n the extent of saying that the choice of a cut-off date\n cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular\n reason is given for the same in the counter-affidavit\n filed by the Government (unless it is shown to be\n\n\n\n\n .totally capricious or whimsical), videState of\n Bihar v Ramjee Prasad[(1990) 3 SCC 368, Union of\n India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal(1994) 4 SCC 212, Ram\n\n\n\n\n\n rao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees\n Welfare Assn. (2004) 2 SCC 76, University Grants\n Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC\n\n\n\n\n\n 536 etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has\n been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government\n or the executive authority as to why a particular cut-off\n date has been chosen, the court must still not declare\n\n that date to be arbitrary and violative ofArticle 14unless the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly\n capricious or outrageous result.Mohd. Ali Imam v. State of Bihar, (2020) 5 SCC 685\n\n\n :9. If we see the rationale of the impugned judgment\n\n\n\n\n [Hari Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine\n Pat 3091] as set out in para 29 onwards, we may\n\n\n\n\n\n notice that the same is predicated on the absence of\n arbitrariness in the applicability of the cut-off date of\n\n\n\n\n\n the amendment in the Triple Benefit Scheme Statute as\n well as the rationality behind it based on the date of\n the Cabinet decision granting Triple Benefit Scheme to\n such deficit grant colleges. We cannot find any fault\n with the reasoning in the impugned order10. We must notice that firstly there was really no\n obligation for exercise of powers of the Government or\n University in the absence of the institutions being not::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS346constituent colleges, but only affiliated colleges. In\n order to support education, a decision was taken to\n provide deficit financing. There was again no\n requirement that the Triple Benefit Scheme ought to be\n extended to the employees of these colleges and was\n\n\n\n\n .not so initially extended. A second step was taken in\n this direction by extending the Scheme. The third step\n was the amendment of the Scheme. It can hardly be\n\n\n\n\n\n said that by taking these beneficial steps, the State\n Government is not liable to take into consideration the\n financial implications of the same, and that the\n\n\n\n\n\n benefits should be extended across the board. The\n amendments could have, in fact, been implemented\n prospectively, but were given part-retrospective effect\n based on the rationale of the date of the Cabinet\n\n decision.11. Apart from this, there may be other considerations\n in the mind of the executive authority while fixing a\n particular date i.e. economic conditions, financial\n\n\n constraints, administrative and other circumstances,\n and if no reason is forthcoming from the executive for\n fixation of a particular date, it should not be interfered\n\n\n\n\n with by the Court unless the cut-off date leads to some\n\n\n\n\n\n blatantly capricious or outrageous result. In such\n cases, it has been opined that there must be exercise\n of judicial restraint and such matters ought to be left\n\n\n\n\n\n to the executive authorities, to fix the cut-off date, and\n the Government thus, must be left with some leeway\n and free play at the joints in this connection. Even if\n no particular reasons are given for the cut-off date by\n the Government, the choice of cut-off date cannot be\n held to be arbitrary (unless it is shown to be totally::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS347capricious or whimsical ( State of A.P.v. N.\n Subbarayu 2008 14 SCC 702).Himachal RTC v. Retired Employees Union, (2021) 4\n SCC 502 :.17.InD.S. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,\n\n\n\n\n\n (1983) 1 SCC 305, this Court had treated the pension\n retirees only, as a homogeneous class and all the\n pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules, were treated\n\n\n\n\n\n as a class, because payment of pension was a\n continuing obligation on the part of the State, till\n lifelong to the pensioners, unlike the beneficiaries of\n\n\n\n\n\n the Contributory Provident Fund. In the said case, it\n was never held that the pension retirees and the emplo\n ryees in service, constitute a homogeneous class. In R.L\n .Marwaha v. Union of India [R.L. Marwahav. Union of\n\n India, (1987) 4 SCC 31, this Court has held that fixing\n of a date for grant of benefit, must have nexus with the\n object sought to be achieved. There cannot be any\n dispute on the proposition.Further, Union of\n\n\n\n India v Deoki Nandan Aggarwal1992 Supp (1) SCC\n 323 relates to fixation of cut-off date, for grant of\n\n\n\n\n liberalised Pension Scheme.Even in Subrata Sen v. Un\n ion of India (2001) 8 SCC 71, where a cut-off date was\n\n\n\n\n\n fixed for the purpose of applicability of revised pension\n scheme this Court has held that all retired employees\n\n\n\n\n\n constitute one homogeneous class and there cannot be\n cut-off date fixed to extend such benefits. All the above\n said cases which are referred to and relied on by the\n High Court are not relevant and cannot be pressed into\n service, to decide the issue which arises on the facts of\n this case.18. Though there are long line of cases, where validity\n of fixation of cut-off date is considered by this Court,::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS348we confine and refer to the case law which is relevant\n to the facts of the case on hand.InState of\n Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal [State of Punjabv. Amar\n Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754, while examining the\n validity of cut-off date fixed for grant of benefit of\n\n\n\n\n .increased quantum of death-cum-retirement gratuity,\n this Court has held that the financial constraint\n pleaded by the Government, was a valid ground for\n\n\n\n\n\n fixation of cut-off date and such fixation was not\n arbitrary, irrational or violative ofArticle 14of the\n Constitution. While differentiating the facts with D.S.\n\n\n\n\n\n Nakara (1983) 1 SCC 305 , this Court held in para 29\n of the judgment, which reads as under : (Amar Nath\n Goyalcase [State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005\n ) 6 SCC 754."29. D.S. Nakara, which is the main stay of the\n\n case of the employees arose under special\n circumstances, quite different from the present\n case. It was a case of revision of pensionary\n\n\n benefits and classification of pensioners into\n two groups by drawing a cut-off line and\n granting the revised pensionary benefits to\n\n\n\n\n employees retiring on or after the cut-off date.The criterion made applicable was "being in\n service and retiring subsequent to the specified\n date". This Court held that for being eligible for\n\n\n\n\n\n liberalised Pension Scheme, application of such\n a criterion is violative ofArticle 14of the\n Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and\n discriminatory in nature. The reason given by\n the Court was that the employees who retired\n prior to a specified date, and those who retired\n thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS349attempt to classify them into separate classes/\n groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits\n was not founded on any intelligible differentia,\n which had a rational nexus with the object\n sought to be achieved. However, it must be\n\n\n\n\n .noted that even in cases of pension,\n subsequent judgments of this Court have\n considerably watered down the rigid view\n\n\n\n\n\n taken in D.S. Nakara as we shall see later inT\n .N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy, (1999) 3\n SCC 414. In any event, this is not a case of a\n\n\n\n\n\n continuing benefit like pension; it is a one-time\n benefit like gratuity."r (emphasis in original)17. We do not endorse such justification of respondents for\n\n the reason that it was not a policy decision separately taken for the\n\n petitioners. The policy decision had been taken on 11.5.2018 to\n\n\n regularise the services of all contract employees of State\n\n Government who had completed service of three years. No exception\n\n\n\n\n was carved for the petitioners. Thus, the policy was the same. The\n\n\n\n\n\n petitioners have been discriminated qua date of its implementation\n\n only. Whereas all other contract employees were regularised w.e.f.1.4.2018, petitioners were regularised w.e.f. 20.8.2020, which in\n\n our considered view is clearly violative ofArticles 14and16of the\n\n Constitution of India and hence unsustainable.18. It was also not a case of fixation of cut-off date. One of\n\n the reasons assigned by respondents for its inability to regularise::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS350petitioners from earlier date is the pendency of appeals before the\n\n Hon'ble Supreme Court. That being so, it does not now lie in the\n\n mouth of respondents to turn around and try to justify its action by\n\n\n\n\n .creating a fiction of class differentiation between the petitioners and\n\n\n\n\n\n other contract employees. It is not the case of respondents that even\n\n in the absence of pendency of appeals before Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\n\n\n\n\n the petitioners would have been differentiated with other contract\n\n employees of the State Government.19. With due deference to the judgments relied upon by the\n\n respondents, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down\n\n therein will not serve the cause of respondents for the reason firstly\n\n that, as held above, it was not a case of fixation of cut-off date for\n\n the entire class, secondly that the above referred judgments were\n\n\n passed in their own facts and lastly the only caveat generated is\n\n that the court should not normally interfere with the fixation of\n\n\n\n\n cut-off date by the executive authority unless such order appears\n\n\n\n\n\n to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary or the\n\n said cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous\n\n\n\n\n\n result or it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical. We have\n\n no hesitation to hold that in the facts of instant case the impugned\n\n action of respondents is blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary.InR\n\n L. Marwaha v. Union of India(1987) 4 SCC 31, it has been held\n\n that fixing of a date for grant of benefit, must have nexus with the::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS351object sought to be achieved. The respondents, as noticed above,\n\n at one stage had themselves supported the cause of petitioners for\n\n granting them permanency of job on the premise of financial comp\n\n\n\n\n .ulsions faced by it. They preferred contract employments or\n\n\n\n\n\n employments under special policies at initial stage than the\n\n recruitments on regular basis for the same reason of financial\n\n\n\n\n\n constraints. Once the courts upheld the contentions of\n\n respondents, they cannot be allowed to defeat the rights of\n\n\n\n\n\n petitioners by creating fictional separate class of employees.Noticeably, the rrespondents have not declared any object for\n\n creating such imaginary classification and hence it is difficult nay\n\n impossible to find necessary nexus between the intelligible\n\n differentia and the object sought to be achieved.20. It is also not a case where the respondents have not\n\n come out with reasons in support of its actions and financial\n\n\n\n\n constraint is not one of the mentioned reasons. Other reasons have\n\n\n\n\n\n already been held by us to be not qualifying the benchmark of\n\n reasonable classification and hence have been adjudged to be\n\n\n\n\n\n discriminatory and arbitrary.21. Lastly another futile attempt has been made on behalf of\n\n respondents by contending that some of the PTA-GIA teachers were\n\n taken on contract and some were left out, therefore, they being\n\n homogeneous class cannot be differentiated. According::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS352to respondents the grant of claimed benefit of regularisation to\n\n petitioners will discriminate the PTA-GIA teachers whose services\n\n were not taken on contract. Again, we do not find any reason to\n\n\n\n\n .subscribe to the view expounded by respondents. Petitioners are\n\n\n\n\n\n seeking the parity with other contract employees of the State\n\n Government on the premise of having formed the same class with\n\n\n\n\n\n them, whereas the rights, if any, of those who have not yet been\n\n taken on contract is not the subject matter of these petitions.Petitioners were taken on contract when they qualified the criteria\n\n of having served as PTA-GIA teachers for seven years. Petitioners\n\n cannot be compared with those who had not fulfilled the requisite\n\n criteria or were not taken on contract for any other reason.22. In view of above discussion, the petitions are allowed.Respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners w.e.f. the due\n\n date i.e. 1.4.2018. Needless to say that the consequential benefits\n\n\n\n\n shall follow. The petitions are accordingly disposed of so also the\n\n\n\n\n\n miscellaneous pending applications(s), if any.(Sabina)\n Judge\n\n\n 31st August, 2022 (Satyen Vaidya)\n (GR) Judge::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2022 20:05:08 :::CIS |
d90b8efb-39bd-5ad3-9c68-78b44de478aa | court_cases | Orissa High CourtSeikh Muntaz Alli vs State Of Odisha on 16 May, 2022Author:S.K. SahooBench:S.K. SahooIN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK\n\n CRLA No.436 of 2021\n\n Seikh Muntaz Alli .... Appellant/\n Petitioner\n\n Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate\n\n -versus-\n\n State of Odisha .... Respondent/\n Opp. Party\n\n Mr. J.P. Patra,\n Addl. Standing Counsel\n\n CORAM:\n JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO\n ORDEROrder No.\n 16.05.2022\n\n I.A. No.462 of 202210. This matter is taken up through Hybrid\n arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).This is an application for interim bail of the\n appellant-petitioner.Grounds have been taken that the wife of the\n petitioner was operated twenty two years back having\n implanted an iron rod in her thigh which is now\n required for removal and her immediate proper\n medical attention. Medical documents have also been\n annexed to the interim application.Instruction was sought for as per order dated\n 09.05.2022 and today, learned counsel for the State\n // 2 //\n\n\nhas produced the written instruction dated 11.05.2022\nreceived from the S.I. of Excise, E.I. & E.B., Unit-II,\n(C.D.), Cuttack wherein it is mentioned as follows:"With reference to the letter on the\n subject cited above, I am to report that on10.05.2022, I along with my staff, namely,\n Reetarani Sethy, lady Excise Constable\n proceeded to the house of Samina Bibi, W/o.\n Muntaz Alli (Accused) to ascertain the health\n condition of Samina Bibi as per para-5 of\n I.A. No.462/2022. I produced her in the\n Govt. hospital, D.H.H., Khurda vide C.R.\n No.211212201314619. After medical\n checkup and X-ray report made on the same\n day i.e. 10.05.2022, it is ascertained that it\n is a fact that Samina Bibi was operated\n twenty two year back having implanted an\n iron rod in her right thigh. Now it needs\n removal through operation. It is also\n ascertained that Samina Bibi is having two\n girl children (one four years old and another\n of fourteen years old) and no male member\n is there to look after the family.Hence, the para-5 as I.A. No.462/2022\n by the petitioner through advocate is found\n genuine and correct."The written instruction is taken on record.\n Considering the submissions made by thePage 2 of 4// 3 //\n\n\nlearned counsel for the respective parties, the\naverments taken in the interim application, the\ndocuments annexed thereto and instruction obtained\nby the learned counsel for the State, I am inclined to\nrelease the petitioner on interim bail. The interim bail\nperiod shall start from 18.05.2022 and the petitioner\nshall surrender before the learned trial Court on\n25.06.2022.Let the appellant-petitioner be released on\ninterim bail for the aforesaid period in connection with\nP.R. No.215 of 2019-20 of E.I. & E.B., Unit-II, Cuttack\ncorresponding to T.R. Case No.19 of 2020 of the file of\nlearned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda on\nfurnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty\nthousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the\nlike amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin\nover the matter with further terms and conditions as\nthe learned Court may deem just and proper subject\nto condition that while on interim bail, the petitioner\nshall not indulge in any criminal activities in any\nmanner.Violation of any terms and conditions shall entail\ncancellation of interim bail.I.A. is accordingly disposed of.\n Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on\nproper application.( S.K. Sahoo)\n JudgePage 3 of 4// 4 //CRLA No.436 of 202111. List this matter in the week commencing from\n 04.07.2022. Learned counsel for the appellant shall\n produce the surrender certificate of the appellant on\n the next date.( S.K. Sahoo)\n Judge\nRKMPage 4 of 4 |
43304abe-8787-5e69-b9c1-e710e3be2281 | court_cases | Delhi High Court - OrdersAtc Ip Llc & Anr vs Owner Of <Https://Atcindiatower. In/> ... on 19 December, 2023Author:Prathiba M. SinghBench:Prathiba M. Singh$~4\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n + CS(COMM) 246/2019 & I.A. 19488/2023\n ATC IP LLC & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs\n Through: Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Vihan Dang,\n Ms. Pragya Jain, Mr. Ujjawal\n Bhargava, Advs (M. 7999640697)\n versus\n\n OWNER OF <HTTPS://ATCINDIATOWER. IN/>\n & ORS ..... Defendants\n Through: Mr Gagan Gupta, Adv. with Mr\n Jaikiran, legal officer of nixi for D-3\n (M. 9868066879)\n CORAM:\n JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH\n ORDER% 19.12.20231. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking enforcement\n of its rights in the marks 'ATC India' and 'ATC India Tower'.3. The Plaintiff No.1- ATC IP LLC. has been engaged in providing\n infrastructure for telecom services, mobile tower installation and services\n relating to telecom operators and site owners. The Plaintiff No.2- ATC\n Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is its Indian subsidiary and is a registered\n infrastructure company. The Plaintiffs provide services to various telecom\n service providers such as Airtel, Vodafone, Jio, etc. The services which areCS(COMM) 246/2019 Page 1 of 9This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/12/2023 at 22:20:58\n provided include establishment, maintenance and provision of the\n telecommunication infrastructure including towers, antenna systems, power\n supply, battery back-up, pre-fabricated shelter and other ancillary services.4. The Plaintiffs own the trademark and logo 'ATC' which are\n registered in various classes i.e., 35, 37 and 38. The Plaintiffs also claim\n the copyright in the artistic works of the 'ATC' logo. The Plaintiffs have\n registered various country level and top-level domain names as listed in\n para 14 of the plaint across various jurisdictions including in India.5. The case of the Plaintiffs is that they own the rights in the following\n trademarks:-, , and\n\n\n\n\n .6. In addition, the Plaintiffs also claims rights in the mark 'ATC' since\n 1955 globally and in India since 2005. The Plaintiffs also advertises and\n publishes its business on its two websites i.e.,\n https://www.americantower.com and https://www.atctower.in.7. In the present suit, the Plaintiffs were aggrieved by the registration of\n the domain name https://atcindiatower.in- Defendant No.1 andCS(COMM) 246/2019 Page 2 of 9This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/12/2023 at 22:20:58\n https://www.atctower.in.net - Defendant No.2 . The said websites have\n identical content as the Plaintiffs' website. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2,\n also claim to offer identical services as that of the Plaintiffs' and were\n collecting various amounts from prospective customers through bank\n accounts in Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank and State Bank of India.\n They were also conducting their services through mobile numbers which\n were registered with Airtel, Vodafone, Jio and BSNL. These two impugned\n domain names, were thus, injuncted in the present suit and the order dated\n 10th May, 2019 was passed. The order dated 5th October, 2023 which\n captures the said order reads as under:-"3. Vide order dated 10th May 2019 this Court granted an ex-\n parte injunction directing Defendant Nos. 3-NIXI and Defendant\n No. 4-Radix FZC to is able/block the impugned domain names,\n as also communicate the details of the persons who had\n registered the impugned domain names to the Plaintiffs. Further,\n Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 (i.e. the Banks) were directed to disclose\n and file before the Court the details of the persons who had\n opened the bank accounts identified in the plaint as also freeze\n the said bank accounts, and Defendant Nos. 8 to 11 (i.e. the\n telecom service providers) were directed to disclose the details of\n the registered users of the mobile numbers identified in the\n Plaint."8. After the restraint order was passed by the Court, the matter\n remained pending. No one has represented the said domain names. The\n operators of the domain names are obviously not interested in contesting\n the matter. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that one of the domain\n names i.e., https://www.atctower.in.net has become available and is beingCS(COMM) 246/2019 Page 3 of 9This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/12/2023 at 22:20:59\n registered by the Plaintiffs. Insofar as the https://atcindiatower.in is\n concerned, in order to bring an end to the present suit, NIXI, which was\n earlier deleted from the array of parties, has again been issued notice.9. Today, Mr. Gupta, ld. Counsel appears for NIXI. Accordingly, NIXI\n is now re-impleaded as a party to the present suit. Mr. Neel Mason, ld.\n Counsel submits that the said domain name was registered by one Mr. Dilip\n Mehra, who is impleaded as Defendant No. 12 through the domain name\n registrar Wild West Domains, LLC. The registry of this domain name is\n NIXI. The said domain name registrar has not appeared before this Court\n neither has the Registrant appeared.10. Mr. Neel Mason, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs further submits that\n Order XIII(A) application has been moved as the operators of the above\n stated domain names are not interested in contesting the matters.11.InRockwool International A/S & Anr. v. Thermocare Rockwool\n (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2018:DHC:6774, the Court while adjudicating observed\n pre-conditions for passing off a summary judgement. The relevant part of\n the same is set out below:"13. In the present case, the Court is at this stage dealing with\n applications for summary judgment. The kind of cases that can\n be decided in a summary manner have to be those cases where a\n party has no real prospect of succeeding in the claim. A perusal\n of Order XIII A Rule 3 as amended by theCommercial Courts\n Actreads as under: "Order XIII-A Summary Judgment1.........2.........3. Grounds for summary judgment. - The Court may give a\n summary judgment against a plaintiff or defendant on a claim if\n it considers that - (a) the plaintiff has not real prospect ofCS(COMM) 246/2019 Page 4 of 9This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/12/2023 at 22:20:59\n succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of\n successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and (b)\n there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be\n disposed of before recording of oral evidence."14. The pre-conditions for passing of a summary judgment under\n this provision are:i) that there is no real prospect of a party succeeding in a claim;ii) that no oral evidence would be required to adjudicate the\n matter;iii) there is a compelling reason for allowing or disallowing the\n claim without oral evidence."12. Accordingly, inMallcom (India) Limited v. Rakesh Kumar,\n 2019:DHC:1643 the ld. Single Judge of this Court has observed:"24. The test for summary judgment, as prescribed in Rule 3 ofOrder XIIIA of the CPCas applicable toCommercial Courts Actis, that "the defendant has no real prospect of successfully\n defending the claim" and that "there is no other compelling\n reason why the claim should not be disposed of before\n recording the oral evidence". Rule 1 of Chapter XA of the Delhi\n High Court (Original Side) Rules merely provides that "At the\n time of Case Management hearing, a Court, may of its own,\n decide a claim pertaining to any dispute, by a summary\n judgment, without recording oral evidence" and Rule 3 therein\n reiterates the language aforesaid of Rule 3 of Order XIIIA qua\n grounds for summary judgment."13. Applying the testslaid down inthe above stated cases, for an\n application under Order XIII A, to the facts of the present case, all the\n essentials have been fulfilled for passing of a summary judgement as thereCS(COMM) 246/2019 Page 5 of 9This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/12/2023 at 22:20:59\n is no real prospect of the Defendants succeeding in a claim, as they are also\n not contesting the present matter even after summons being issued.14. On behalf of NIXI it is submitted by Mr. Gupta, ld. Counsel that he\n has no objection if the Court directs transfer of the said domain name i.e.,\n https://atcindiatower.in/- Defendant No.3 to the Plaintiffs. For the said\n purpose, NIXI would issue authorisation.15. A perusal of the record would show that the case of the Plaintiffs are\n that they are the registered proprietor of the mark 'ATC', 'ATC Logo',\n 'ATC India' etc., which are in dispute. There are various registrations\n which have been obtained. The Plaintiffs also have long and extensive use\n across several countries of the world which is evident from the number of\n websites and domain names which are registered by it. Some of which have\n been listed in paragraph 14. The same would show that the Plaintiffs'\n businesses span across various continents and countries including India,\n Taiwan, Italy, United Kingdom etc.,16. The Plaintiffs' websites are also openly accessible and show\n sufficient usage and goodwill in the mark. The impugned websites also\n reflect that the logos and the marks of the Plaintiffs had been copied. The\n screenshots thereof are extracted below:-CS(COMM) 246/2019 Page 6 of 9This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/12/2023 at 22:20:59CS(COMM) 246/2019 Page 7 of 9This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/12/2023 at 22:20:5917. In view of the fact that www.atctower.in comprises of the entire\n mark of the Plaintiffs, it is capable of being misused by third parties.\n Accordingly, this is a case where summary judgment deserves to be passed.18. The suit is decreed against the operators of both these domain names\n by a permanent injunction restraining them from using the marks 'ATC',\n 'ATC India', 'ATC Tower' including the impugned domain names.19. The said injunction shall be given effect to by the concerned domain\n name registrars. Insofar as www.atctower.in is concerned, NIXI shall take\n steps to issue the authorisation and facilitate the transfer of the domain\n name to the Plaintiffs.CS(COMM) 246/2019 Page 8 of 9This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/12/2023 at 22:20:5920. Once the domain names are transferred to the Plaintiffs, the disabling\n and blocking order shall no longer operate.21. No further reliefs are pressed. The suit is decreed.22. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.23. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.DECEMBER 19, 2023\n mr/ksCS(COMM) 246/2019 Page 9 of 9This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/12/2023 at 22:20:59 |
57084925-39f6-5920-afc4-67b7714c40b7 | court_cases | Andhra Pradesh High Court - AmravatiVegullaleela Krishna vs The State Of Ap on 28 May, 2020Bench: M.Venkata RamanaTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANACRIMINAL PETITION No.2027 OF 2020\n\n\nORDER:-The petitioner is the sole accused in Cr.No.108/2020 of\n\nMandapeta Police Station, East Godavari District. The offences\n\nalleged are under Sections 323, 306 read with 116 ofIPC. It is\n\nan application underSection 438of Cr.P.C for grant of\n\nanticipatory bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that one Rachakonda\n\nBheemaraju, who is the defacto complainant in this case, was\n\nworking for the contractor for collecting toll from the vendors in\n\nthe market for the last two months. On 15-05-2020 at about\n\n5.30 am, when he was collecting such toll from the farmers, who\n\nhad brought the produce for sale in a school ground, the\n\naccused, who belonged to a political party questioned him in\n\ncollecting the toll at higher rate than prescribed, to which the\n\ndefacto complainant informed him that he was collecting the toll\n\nas per the rates fixed by the Municipal authorities. In that\n\nsituation, as per the version of prosecution the accused slapped\n\nthe defacto complainant in the presence of several others in that\n\nmarket area, humiliated him. Unable to bear such humiliation,\n\naccording to the version of the prosecution, at about 11.30 am\n\non the same day in an open site near Bhasyam School, the\n\ndefacto complainant consumed an insecticide and attempted to\n\ncommit to suicide. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital\n\nwhere he was subjected to treatment.23. On the strength of the complaint of the defacto\n\ncomplainant itself, a case was registered against the petitioner\n\nfor the offences stated above.4. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner that the alleged victim has survived in his attempt\n\nand a false complaint is foisted against the petitioner in as\n\nmuch as he questioned about collection of toll at higher rate\n\nthan prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further\n\nbrought to the notice of this Court that on the complaint of the\n\naccused the Commissioner, Mandapeta Municipality also\n\nimposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- for such illegal and unauthorized\n\nact on the part of the contractor. Thus, it is contended even if\n\nthe case of the prosecution is considered that the petitioner\n\nquestioned such activities of the contractor, it could not have\n\ndriven the defacto complainant to such drastic act.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also informed that even\n\nthough a notice, dt.16-05-2020 underSection 41-Aof Cr.P.C\n\nwas served directing the petitioner to appear before the\n\nconcerned Investigating Officer, he did not appear, in as much\n\nas he suspected that he would be arrested at the instance of\n\nruling political party members, who are bent upon making the\n\npetitioner to face such action. It is also contended by the\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that the municipal contractor\n\nwho was assigned such responsibility of collecting toll belongs to\n\nthe ruling political party.36. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner requested that anticipatory bail be granted to the\n\npetitioner since there is any amount of justification and since\n\nthe petitioner is apprehending that he would be subjected to\n\nharassment by the concerned police in the guise of arrest.7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this petition\n\nstating that the material on record is disclosing highhanded\n\nbehaviour on the part of the petitioner and he did not even care\n\nto respond to the notice served by the Investigating Officer\n\nunder Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended\n\nthat having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged as well\n\nas the incident, discretion need not be exercised in favour of the\n\npetitioner.9. As seen from the complaint, it is clearly attributed to the\n\npetitioner that he not only accosted the defacto complainant for\n\nan alleged act in collecting toll at higher rate than prescribed,\n\nbut also slapped him. This conduct if accepted is demonstrative\n\nof highhandedness on the part of the petitioner. A clear overt act\n\nis attributed to the petitioner in this respect. The reaction of the\n\ndefacto complainant, when he was so slapped in the presence of\n\nseveral others in a market area when felt ashamed is reflected,\n\nwhich apparently had driven him to attempt suicide.\n\nNonetheless, all these circumstances are subject matter of\n\ninvestigation. The question relating to collection of higher toll\n\nand the action taken by the Municipal authorities against the\n\ncontractor shall also be subject matter of investigation.410. Suffice for the present purpose, the specific overt act\n\nattributed to the petitioner. When they are viewed in the context\n\nof the circumstances, which according to the prosecution had\n\ndriven the defacto complainant to resort such drastic act, it\n\ncannot be stated that it is a fit case, to exercise discretion to\n\ngrant anticipatory bail. Gravity of the incident holds key in the\n\nprocess. Thus, finding no justification to grant anticipatory bail,\n\nthis petition has to be dismissed.11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed._________________________________\n JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA\n\nDate: 28-05-2020\n\nIS5THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA\n\n\n\n\n CRIMINAL PETITION No.2027 OF 2020\n\n Date: 28-05-2020\n\nIS |
bae010b6-50e8-5c5c-9270-fc1737dea6f1 | court_cases | Patna High CourtBinod Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 8 July, 2021Author:S. KumarBench:Chief Justice,S. KumarIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10704 of 2021\n ======================================================\n Binod Kumar Son of Tulasi Yadav Resident of Village- Dumaro, P.o.- Gadi\n Bishanpur, P.s.- Khaira, District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Govt. of\n Bihar, Patna\n2. The District Magistrate, Jamui, District- Jamui, Bihar\n3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jamui, District- Jamui\n4. The Excise Inspector, Jamui, District- Jamui, Bihar\n ... ... Respondent/s\n ======================================================\n Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukul Jee\n Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh\n For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad (GP-7)\n ======================================================\n CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n and\n HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR\n ORAL JUDGMENT\n (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)\n\n Date : 08-07-2021\n Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned\n\n counsel for the State.\n\n Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): -\n\n\n " That this is an application for issuance of\n appropriate writ(s)/ direction(s) to the respondents for\n release of the vehicle of the petitioner in his favour\n which is a Honda Motor Cycle bearing Regd. No. JH-\n 11Y-6694 which has been seized in connection with\n Khaira P.S. Case No. 535/2020 dated 25.12.2020 for\n the offences punishable undersections 30(a)of Bihar\n Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 and\n 272, 273 ofI.P.C. on 25.12.2020 and for which a\n confiscation proceeding is pending in the Court of\n Learned the District Magistrate, Jamui till date.\n\n And/or for any other appropriate relief(s) to the\n petitioner for which he may be found entitled to in the\n eye of law."\n\n\n Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-2021\n 2/20\n\n\n\n\n petition be disposed of in terms of order dated 9th January, 2020\n\n passed in CWJC No. 20598 of 2019 titled as Md. Shaukat Ali\n\n Vs. The State of Bihar and subsequent order dated 14th January,\n\n 2020 passed in CWJC No.17165 of 2019 titled as Umesh Sah\n\n Versus the State of Bihar & Ors. and order dated 29.01.2020\n\n passed in CWJC No.2050 of 2020 titled as Bunilal Sah @\n\n Munilal Sah.\n\n Learned counsel for the respondents has no\n\n objection to the same.The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016(hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibits the manufacture,\n\n storage, distribution, transportation, possession, sale, purchase\n\n and consumption of any intoxicant or liquor, unless so allowed\n\n in terms of the Act. (Section 13).\n\n In addition to the penalty imposed for committing\n\n such an offence,Section 56of the Act lays down the procedure\n\n for confiscation of "things" used for in the commission of such\n\n an offence. The said Section reads as under:\n\n "56. Things liable for confiscation.- Whenever an\n offence has been committed, which is punishable under this\n Act, following things shall be liable to confiscation,\n namely-\n (a) Any intoxicant, liquor, material, still, utensil,\n implement, apparatus in respect of or by means of\n which such offence has been committed;\n (b) any intoxicant or liquor unlawfully imported,\n transported, manufactured, sold or brought along with or\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-2021\n 3/20\n\n\n\n\n in addition to, any intoxicant, liable to confiscation\n under clause (a);\n (c) any receptacle, package, or covering in which\n anything liable to confiscation under clause (a) or clause\n (b), is found, and the other contents, if any, of such\n receptacle, package or covering;\n (d) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used\n for carrying the same.\n (e) Any premises or part thereof that may have been\n used for storing or manufacturing any liquor or\n intoxicant or for committing any other offence under this\n Act.\n Explanation.- The word "premises" include the\n immovable structure, all moveable items within the structure\n and the land on which the premises is situated."\n\n\n Undersection 58power to issue an order of\n\n confiscation vests with the District Collector/Authorized officer,\n\n who upon receipt of the report of the seizing officer detaining\n\n such property ("things") is required to pass an order.\n\n This Court has been flooded with several petitions\n\n solely on account of non-initiation of such proceedings of\n\n confiscation or passing of illegal orders with respect thereto.\n\n Also, on account of lack of parties pursing the remedies so\n\n provided under the Act.\n\n Consequently, the court was faced with the\n\n following fact situations:- (a) where despite seizure, no\n\n proceedings for confiscation underSection 58were initiated; (ii)\n\n where such proceedings were initiated but not concluded within\n\n a reasonable time; (c) the parties after obtaining interim relief\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-2021\n 4/20\n\n\n\n\n for release of "things" under orders passed in different set of\n\n writ petitions, did not participate in the confiscatory\n\n proceedings; (d) where the order of confiscation was neither\n\n communicated nor the parties made aware of such fact, thus\n\n precluding them from filing appeal underSection 92and\n\n Revision underSection 93of the Act; (e) proceedings initiated\n\n underSection 92/93were not concluded within a reasonable\n\n time either on account of inaction on the part of the authority(s)\n\n or on account of non-cooperation of the private parties, be it for\n\n whatever reason.\n\n Resultantly, this Court from time to time has been\n\n passing several orders.\n\n In CWJC No.3245 of 2017 titled as Manish\n\n Kumar Chaudhary versus the State of Bihar & Ors., this\n\n Court vide order dated 18.01.20202 issued following directions:\n\n "As such, as mutually prayed for, the present\n writ petition is being disposed of on the following mutually\n agreed terms:-\n\n (a) Interim order dated 07.03.2017 passed in the instant\n writ petition, directing release of the property\n (vehicle/land/house/shop etc.) shall continue to\n remain in operation till such time proceedings up to\n the stage of initiation of confiscatory proceedings\n and its culmination as also filing and culmination of\n the proceedings in the appeal, as the case may be.\n This, however, would be subject to the petitioner(s)\n fully cooperating and not transferring/alienating the\n property to any person or creating third party rights.\n It goes without saying that the property shall be\n maintained and retained in its original condition and\n not destroyed in any manner or its character\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-2021\n 5/20\n\n\n\n\n changed.\n (b) Wherever proceedings for confiscation have not started,\n the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Act,\n shall positively initiate the same within a period of\n four weeks from today. In any event, petitioner\n undertakes to appear in the office of the concerned\n appropriate authority/the concerned District\n Magistrate, on the 10th of February, 2020 and\n apprise him of the passing of the order. The said\n Officer shall forthwith, and not later than four weeks\n from today, initiate the proceedings and after\n compliance of principles of natural justice, take a\n decision thereupon within a period of two months.\n (c) In the event of the authority arriving at the conclusion,\n directing confiscation of the property, the petitioner\n shall positively file the appeal within the statutory\n period as envisaged underSection 92of the Bihar\n Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and the appellate\n authority shall positively decide the same within a\n period of two months thereafter.\n (d) Wherever confiscatory proceedings already stand\n concluded and if the petitioner so desires, within\n four weeks from today or within the statutory period\n of limitation, as the case may be, positively file an\n appeal, which shall be adjudicated on its own merit.\n The issue of limitation shall not be raised by the\n State or come in the petitioner's way of decision on\n merits. The said proceedings shall positively be\n concluded within a period of two months from the\n date of filing.\n (e) Petitioner undertakes to fully cooperate in all such\n proceedings (confiscatory, Appeal, etc.) and shall not\n take any unnecessary adjournment.\n (f) Where appeal already stands filed, petitioner shall\n appear before the said Authority on the 20th\n February, 2020 and apprise him of the passing of the\n order. The Appellate Authority shall positively\n decide the same within a period of two months\n thereafter.\n (g) With the decision in the appeal, it shall be open for\n either of the parties to take recourse to such\n remedies as are available in accordance with law,\n including approaching this Court, on the same and\n subsequent cause of action.\n (h) If the petitioner fails to cooperate, does not join, or\n makes an endeavour of procrastination, in any one of\n the proceedings referred to supra, it shall be open for\n the authority to take a decision with regard to the\n property (vehicle/house/land etc.), including taking\n back possession and putting it on sale in terms of the\n Act, with the interim order deemed to have been\n vacated.\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-2021\n 6/20\n\n\n\n\n (i) If the appellant chooses not to prefer an appeal within\n the said statutory period or as directed herein, it shall\n be open for the authority to take a decision with\n regard to the property, including taking back\n possession and putting it on sale in terms of the Act\n and the interim order passed in the instant petition\n shall be deemed to have been vacated.\n (j) With the outcome of the Special Leave Petition (C)\n No.29749 of 2016, titled as State of Bihar & Ors.\n etc. Vs. Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage\n Companies & Anr., parties, including the petitioner\n would be at liberty to take recourse to such remedies\n as are permissible in law."\n\n\n In CWJC No.20598 of 2019 titled as Md.\n\n Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. this Court vide\n\n order dated 09.01.2020 issued the following directions: -\n\n "Without adjudicating the petitioner's petition on\n merits, we are of the considered view that interest of justice\n would be best met, if the petition is disposed of in the\n following terms:-\n (a) Since the vehicle in question stands seized\n in relation to the FIR which stood registered long ago, in\n case confiscation proceeding has not been initiated, it must\n be initiated within a period of 15 days from today and that\n confiscation proceeding stands initiated, we direct the\n appropriate authority under the Act to forthwith ensure that\n such proceedings be concluded not later than 30 days.\n (b) The petitioner undertakes to make himself\n available in the office of the concerned appropriate\n authority empowered underSection 58of the Act i.e.\n District Collector, in his/her office on 24.01.2020 at 10:30\n A.M.\n (c) We further direct the appropriate authority\n to positively conclude the confiscation proceeding within\n next thirty days on appearance of the petitioner. If for\n whatever reason, such proceeding cannot be concluded, in\n that event it shall be open for the authority to take such\n measures, as are permissible in law, for release of the\n vehicle in question by way of interim measure, on such\n terms as may be deemed appropriate, considering the\n attending facts and circumstances of the case.\n (d) If eventually, the appropriate authority\n arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to be\n confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek\n damages in accordance with law and have appropriate\n proceedings initiated against the erring officials/officers.\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-2021\n 7/20\n\n\n\n\n Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the\n certified copy of the order shall be made available to the\n concerned District Collector on the date so fixed.\n For future guidance, where parties have not\n approached this Court, we issue the following direction:-\n The expression "reasonable delay" used in\n Section 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered view,\n necessarily has to be within a reasonable time and with\n dispatch, which period, in our considered view, three\n months time is sufficient enough for any authority to\n adjudicate any issue, more so, when we are dealing with\n confiscatory proceedings."\n\n\n These directions were reiterated in CWJC\n\n No.17165 of 2019 titled as Umesh Sah Versus The State of\n\n Bihar & Ors. by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2020.\n\n Since the respondents had failed to comply with\n\n the several orders passed by this court, in CWJC No.2050 of\n\n 2020 titled as Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah versus the State of\n\n Bihar & Ors. vide order dated 29.01.2020 by recording the\n\n entire history, directed the State to file an affidavit as to why\n\n proceedings for contempt be not initiated. Such order dated\n\n 29.01.2020in toto reads as under:-"It is seen that despite our order dated 9thof January,\n 2020, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 20598 of 2019, titled asMd.\n Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors., and the order dated\n 14thof January, 2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17165 of 2019,\n titled asUmesh Sah Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors., the State has\n not initiated proceedings under the provisions of theBihar\n Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. It is a matter of record that\n this legislation has generated huge litigation. The docket of the\n Court, be it the trial court or the High Court, is now choked\n solely on account of such legislation. In the High Court itself,\n on an average, 400 bail applications are being filed every day,\n some of which are pertaining to the said Statute. Position in the\n lower courts is worse. Before the trial courts, i.e. the Sessions\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-20218/20Courts, more than 1,75,000 challans stand filed in relation to\n the said Statute. Before this Court, on an average, more than\n 5000 writ petitions are being filed annually for release of\n vehicles/properties seized under the said Act. It has been the\n continued practice of this Court, since the year 2017, that in the\n writ petitions the vehicles, unless the situation so warrants, are\n normally being released subject to fulfilment of certain\n conditions. This, perhaps, is done only to protect the property\n from being destroyed, for there is no mechanism under the\n Statute or with the administration for protecting the property\n seized in relation to the crime registered under the said Statute.\n Property is left to the vagaries of weather, resulting into\n national loss. This we say for the reason that proceedings for\n confiscation, as envisaged underSection 58, were never\n initiated by the authority, which under the Act is the District\n Magistrate/Collector. It is only as a result of inaction on the\n part of such authorities that the owners of the\n vehicles/properties are constrained to approach this Court for\n its release.When the matter in C.W.J.C. No. 20598 of 2019\n (Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors.) and in 17165\n of 2019(Umesh Sah Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors.) (supra) was\n taken up for hearing, the State vehemently opposed the release\n of the vehicle and, as such, the following orders were passed:(in C.W.J.C. No.20598 of 2019, order dated 9.1.2020)\n "The petition filed on 01.10.2019 is listed for\n hearing for the first time today before the Court.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and\n learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.With the consent of the learned counsel for the\n parties, the writ petition stands disposed of in the following\n terms.The petitioner prays for provisional release of Tata\n Indigo white vehicle bearing Registration No. BR 01CX 1796\n which has been seized in connection with Kotwali P. S. Case\n No. 721 of 2019, for the offences punishable underSections\n 427/279of the Indian Penal Code andSection 37(b)(c)of the\n Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.It is continued practice of this Court that in cases of\n drunken driving; no recovery from the vehicle; recovery of less\n than commercial quantity; where ex-facie, vehicle is not liable\n to be confiscated; where there is inordinate delay in initiating\n proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle etc., this Court has\n been directing the State to provisionally release\n vehicle/property, subject to initiation/conclusion/finalisation of\n the confiscatory proceedings, as the case may be. Reference\n can be made to the judgments/ orders passed by different co-\n ordinate Benches of this Court, viz:-(i) Judgement dated 22.03.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.5049 of 2018, titled asDiwakar Kumar Singh\n versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(ii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in CWJC\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-20219/20No.13162 of 2018 titled asRajesh Kumar Pandit @\n Rajesh Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.;(iii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.14242 of 2018 titled asAmar Kumar Vs. The State of\n Bihar & Ors.;(iv) order dated 12.02.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.2437 of 2018 titled asMahendra Manjhi Vs. The\n State of Bihar & Ors.;(v) judgement dated 12.02.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.2470 of 2018 titled asLaxman Das @\n Lakshman Ravidas Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.;(vi) order dated 11.09.2017 passed in CWJC\n No.13158 of 2017 titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus The\n State of Bihar & Ors.;(vii) order dated 27.03.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.5528 of 2018 titled asBikash Kumar Vs. The State of\n Bihar & Ors.;(viii) order dated 27.03.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.5528 of 2018 titled as Bikash Kumar Versus The\n State of Bihar & Ors.;(ix) order dated 01.05.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.7755 of 2018 titled as Anandi Prasad Versus The\n State of Bihar & Ors.;(x) order dated 01.05.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.7644 of 2018 titled as Suraj Ram Versus The State of\n Bihar & Ors.;(xi) order dated 07.08.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.15435 of 2018 titled as Kalesar Chaudhari Versus the\n State of Bihar & Ors.;(xii) judgement dated 18.01.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.1215 of 2019 titled as Raushan Kumar @\n Raushan Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(xiii) judgement dated 29.01.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.1620 of 2019 titled as Asharfi Kumar @\n Rakesh Kumar Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.;(xiv) judgement dated 08.02.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.2380 of 2019 titled as Avinash Kumar Versus\n the State of Bihar & Ors.;(xv) judgement dated 29.01.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.1648 of 2019 titled as Roshan Kumar Versus\n The State of Bihar & Ors.; and\n (xvi) judgement dated 22.01.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.1314 of 2019 titled as Shanti Devi Versus The\n State of Bihar & Ors.In fact, in CWJC No. 5049 of 2018 titled as\n Diwakar Kumar Singh Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.\n the Court issued the following directions:-"That apart, in the confiscation proceedings, the\n confiscating authority shall take note of the provisions ofSection 56of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016\n and record a positive finding after hearing the petitioner as\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202110/20to whether when the petitioner is found or the vehicle is\n found to be used by a person in drunken condition and no\n liquor is seized from the vehicle or when the vehicle is not\n used for transportation of liquor, whether the provision ofSection 56of the Act will apply. It shall be mandatory for\n the confiscating authority to decide this issue before passing\n any order on the confiscation proceedings. The confiscating\n authority shall consider the provision ofSection 56of the\n Act, apply his mind and pass a speaking order with regard\n to confiscation initiated. Without deciding the aforesaid\n issue as a preliminary issue, further proceedings in the\n confiscation proceedings shall be prohibited.We further request the office of the Advocate\n General to communicate this order to all the District\n Magistrates in the State of Bihar, who would be mandated\n to pass an appropriate order in such cases where the vehicle\n has been confiscated underSection 56of the Act only on\n the allegation that the vehicle was being driven in a drunken\n condition and no liquor was seized from the vehicle nor the\n vehicle used for transportation or carriage of liquor. The\n issue shall be decided by each and every District Magistrate\n before proceeding in the confiscation proceedings where the\n allegation is about the vehicle being driven in a drunken\n condition and no liquor was found from the possession of\n the vehicle.It shall be the duty of the Advocate General to\n communicate this order to each and every District\n Magistrate and inform the Registrar General of this Court.\n In spite thereof, if we find that the District Magistrates are\n passing confiscation order without addressing this issue\n first, we may consider initiating contempt proceedings\n against the concerned District Magistrate."It is further seen that in CWJC No.15003 of 2019\n titled as Shobha Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. the\n Court observed as under:-"6. On examination of aforesaid fact,\n particularly allegation of the petitioner that in a court\n proceeding before the learned Special Judge, Excise, a false\n information was given, we are of the opinion that the court\n of learned Special Judge, Excise would be competent court\n to pass an appropriate order, in view of provisions contained\n inSection 340of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.7. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty\n to file appropriate petition before the learned Special Judge,\n Excise for prosecuting the concerned police official.8. So far as claim of compensation is concerned,\n obviously on going through the material on record, since\n there was no recovery of liquor from the vehicle and it was\n a case, in which, the occupants of the vehicle were alleged\n to be in drunken condition and were creating nuisance,\n though were liable to be arrested. In any event, the vehicle\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202111/20was not required to be seized, since it was not liable to be\n confiscated.9. In such situation, we are of the opinion that it\n is a fit case, in which, we may direct to pay adequate\n compensation to the petitioner, being owner of the vehicle,\n to the tune of Rs.75,000/- (seventy five thousand), however,\n Sri Kumar Manish, learned Standing Counsel - 5 requests\n for granting an opportunity for obtaining detailed\n instruction and filing counter affidavit in the matter. The\n request of Sri Kumar Manish, S.C.-5 is allowed for filing\n counter affidavit so that final order may be passed.10. It goes without saying that before filing\n counter affidavit, the respondent no. 4/Superintendent of\n Police, Darbhanga may conduct a preliminary inquiry\n regarding the conduct of the police officer, who had seized\n the vehicle of the petitioner and state all those facts in its\n counter affidavit, which must be filed by 29th of\n November, 2019. The affidavit must be sworn by the\n Superintendent of Police himself.11. It further goes without saying that if after\n considering all the facts, including counter affidavit, which\n is proposed to be filed, the Court comes to the conclusion\n that the petitioner is entitled for claim of amount of\n compensation, which has been referred hereinabove, the\n said compensation amount must be recovered from the\n pocket of the police officer, who was responsible for such\n illegal seizure."Despite the same, only before this Court, when\n matters of similar nature came up for hearing on 16thof\n December, 2019, the learned Advocate General assisted by Shri\n Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel-11, and Shri Vivek\n Prasad, learned Government Pleader-7, vehemently opposed\n the petitions for release of the vehicles. Consequently, the writ\n petitions were disposed of with the directions to the appropriate\n authorities to positively initiate/conclude confiscatory\n proceedings within a period of 30-45 days.Without adjudicating the petitioner's petition on\n merits, we are of the considered view that interest of justice\n would be best met, if the petition is disposed of in the\n following terms:-(a) Since the vehicle in question stands seized\n in relation to the FIR which stood registered long ago, in\n case confiscation proceeding has not been initiated, it must\n be initiated within a period of 15 days from today and that\n confiscation proceeding stands initiated, we direct the\n appropriate authority under the Act to forthwith ensure that\n such proceedings be concluded not later than 30 days.(b) The petitioner undertakes to make himself\n available in the office of the concerned appropriate\n authority empowered under Section 58 of the Act i.e.\n District Collector, in his/her office on 24.01.2020 at 10:30\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202112/20A.M.(c) We further direct the appropriate authority\n to positively conclude the confiscation proceeding within\n next thirty days on appearance of the petitioner. If for\n whatever reason, such proceeding cannot be concluded, in\n that event it shall be open for the authority to take such\n measures, as are permissible in law, for release of the\n vehicle in question by way of interim measure, on such\n terms as may be deemed appropriate, considering the\n attending facts and circumstances of the case.(d) If eventually, the appropriate authority\n arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to be\n confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek\n damages in accordance with law and have appropriate\n proceedings initiated against the erring officials/officers.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the\n certified copy of the order shall be made available to the\n concerned District Collector on the date so fixed.For future guidance, where parties have not\n approached this Court, we issue the following direction:-The expression "reasonable delay" used in Section\n 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered view,\n necessarily has to be within a reasonable time and with\n dispatch, which period, in our considered view, three\n months time is sufficient enough for any authority to\n adjudicate any issue, more so, when we are dealing with\n confiscatory proceedings.We clarify that we have not adjudicated the writ\n petition on merits and it shall be open for the parties to take\n all stand in the adjudicatory proceedings and wherever\n parties are aggrieved, it shall be open to them to initiate\n appropriate proceeding before the appellate authority.Learned counsel for the State also undertakes to\n communicate the order to the concerned appropriate\n authority i.e. District Magistrate, empowered underSection\n 58of the Act."(In C.W.J.C. No.17165 of 2019, order dated 14.1.2020)\n "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and\n learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our\n attention to our earlier order dated 09.01.2020 passed in CWJC\n No. 20598 of 2019, titled asMd. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of\n Bihar& Ors., and wants the petition to be disposed of in terms\n thereof.With the consent of the learned counsel for the\n parties, the writ petition stands disposed of in the following\n terms.The petitioner prays for provisional release of Pick\n Up Van (Tata Motor/SFC-407 D-Van) bearing Registration No.\n BR-06G-4211 which has been seized in connection with\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202113/20Taukauliya P.S.Case No. 709 of 2018 for the offences\n punishable underSections 272,273,34of the Indian Penal\n Code andSections 30(a),38(1),41(1)of the Bihar Prohibition\n and Excise Act, 2016.It is continued practice of this Court that in cases of\n drunken driving; no recovery from the vehicle; recovery of less\n than commercial quantity; where ex-facie, vehicle is not liable\n to be confiscated; where there is inordinate delay in initiating\n proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle etc., this Court has\n been directing the State to provisionally release\n vehicle/property, subject to initiation/conclusion/finalisation of\n the confiscatory proceedings, as the case may be. Reference\n can be made to the judgments/ orders passed by different co-\n ordinate Benches of this Court, viz:-(i) Jud gement dated 22.03.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.5049 of 2018, titled asDiwakar Kumar Singh\n versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(ii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.13162 of 2018 titled asRajesh Kumar Pandit @\n Rajesh Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.;(iii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.14242 of 2018 titled asAmar Kumar Vs. The State of\n Bihar & Ors.;(iv) order dated 12.02.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.2437 of 2018 titled asMahendra Manjhi Vs. The State\n of Bihar & Ors.;(v) judgement dated 12.02.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.2470 of 2018 titled asLaxman Das @\n Lakshman Ravidas Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.;(vi) order dated 11.09.2017 passed in CWJC\n No.13158 of 2017 titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus The\n State of Bihar & Ors.;(vii) order dated 27.03.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.5528 of 2018 titled asBikash Kumar Vs. The State of\n Bihar & Ors.;(viii) order dated 27.03.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.5528 of 2018 titled as Bikash Kumar Versus The State\n of Bihar & Ors.;(ix) order dated 01.05.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.7755 of 2018 titled as Anandi Prasad Versus The State\n of Bihar & Ors.;(x) order dated 01.05.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.7644 of 2018 titled as Suraj Ram Versus The State of\n Bihar & Ors.;(xi) order dated 07.08.2018 passed in CWJC\n No.15435 of 2018 titled as Kalesar Chaudhari Versus the\n State of Bihar & Ors.;(xii) judgement dated 18.01.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.1215 of 2019 titled as Raushan Kumar @\n Raushan Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(xiii) judgement dated 29.01.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.1620 of 2019 titled as Asharfi Kumar @\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202114/20Rakesh Kumar Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.;(xiv) judgement dated 08.02.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.2380 of 2019 titled as Avinash Kumar Versus\n the State of Bihar & Ors.;(xv) judgement dated 29.01.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.1648 of 2019 titled as Roshan Kumar Versus\n The State of Bihar & Ors.; and\n (xvi) judgement dated 22.01.2019 passed in\n CWJC No.1314 of 2019 titled as Shanti Devi Versus The\n State of Bihar & Ors.In fact, in CWJC No. 5049 of 2018 titled as\n Diwakar Kumar Singh Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.\n the Court issued the following directions:-"That apart, in the confiscation proceedings, the\n confiscating authority shall take note of the provisions ofSection 56of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016\n and record a positive finding after hearing the petitioner as\n to whether when the petitioner is found or the vehicle is\n found to be used by a person in drunken condition and no\n liquor is seized from the vehicle or when the vehicle is not\n used for transportation of liquor, whether the provision ofSection 56of the Act will apply. It shall be mandatory for\n the confiscating authority to decide this issue before passing\n any order on the confiscation proceedings. The confiscating\n authority shall consider the provision ofSection 56of the\n Act, apply his mind and pass a speaking order with regard\n to confiscation initiated. Without deciding the aforesaid\n issue as a preliminary issue, further proceedings in the\n confiscation proceedings shall be prohibited.We further request the office of the Advocate\n General to communicate this order to all the District\n Magistrates in the State of Bihar, who would be mandated\n to pass an appropriate order in such cases where the vehicle\n has been confiscated underSection 56of the Act only on\n the allegation that the vehicle was being driven in a drunken\n condition and no liquor was seized from the vehicle nor the\n vehicle used for transportation or carriage of liquor. The\n issue shall be decided by each and every District Magistrate\n before proceeding in the confiscation proceedings where the\n allegation is about the vehicle being driven in a drunken\n condition and no liquor was found from the possession of\n the vehicle.It shall be the duty of the Advocate General to\n communicate this order to each and every District\n Magistrate and inform the Registrar General of this Court.\n In spite thereof, if we find that the District Magistrates are\n passing confiscation order without addressing this issue\n first, we may consider initiating contempt proceedings\n against the concerned District Magistrate."It is further seen that in CWJC No.15003 of 2019\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202115/20titled as Shobha Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.the\n Court observed as under:-"6. On examination of aforesaid fact,\n particularly allegation of the petitioner that in a court\n proceeding before the learned Special Judge, Excise, a false\n information was given, we are of the opinion that the court\n of learned Special Judge, Excise would be competent court\n to pass an appropriate order, in view of provisions contained\n inSection 340of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.7. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty\n to file appropriate petition before the learned Special Judge,\n Excise for prosecuting the concerned police official.8. So far as claim of compensation is concerned,\n obviously on going through the material on record, since\n there was no recovery of liquor from the vehicle and it was\n a case, in which, the occupants of the vehicle were alleged\n to be in drunken condition and were creating nuisance,\n though were liable to be arrested. In any event, the vehicle\n was not required to be seized, since it was not liable to be\n confiscated.9. In such situation, we are of the opinion that it\n is a fit case, in which, we may direct to pay adequate\n compensation to the petitioner, being owner of the vehicle,\n to the tune of Rs.75,000/- (seventy five thousand), however,\n Sri Kumar Manish, learned Standing Counsel - 5 requests\n for granting an opportunity for obtaining detailed\n instruction and filing counter affidavit in the matter. The\n request of Sri Kumar Manish, S.C.-5 is allowed for filing\n counter affidavit so that final order may be passed.10. It goes without saying that before filing\n counter affidavit, the respondent no. 4/Superintendent of\n Police, Darbhanga may conduct a preliminary inquiry\n regarding the conduct of the police officer, who had seized\n the vehicle of the petitioner and state all those facts in its\n counter affidavit, which must be filed by 29th of\n November, 2019. The affidavit must be sworn by the\n Superintendent of Police himself.11. It further goes without saying that if after\n considering all the facts, including counter affidavit, which\n is proposed to be filed, the Court comes to the conclusion\n that the petitioner is entitled for claim of amount of\n compensation, which has been referred hereinabove, the\n said compensation amount must be recovered from the\n pocket of the police officer, who was responsible for such\n illegal seizure."Despite the same, only before this Court, when\n matters of similar nature came up for hearing on 16 thof\n December, 2019, the learned Advocate General assisted by\n Shri Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel-11, and Shri\n Vivek Prasad, learned Government Pleader-7, vehemently\n opposed the petitions for release of the vehicles.\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202116/20Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of with the\n directions to the appropriate authorities to positively\n initiate/conclude confiscatory proceedings within a period\n of 30-45 days.Without adjudicating the petitioner's petition on\n merits, we are of the considered view that interest of justice\n would be best met, if the petition is disposed of in the\n following terms:-(a) Since the vehicle in question stands seized\n in relation to the FIR which stood registered long ago, in\n case confiscation proceeding has not been initiated, it must\n be initiated within a period of 15 days from today and that\n confiscation proceeding stands initiated, we direct the\n appropriate authority under the Act to forthwith ensure that\n such proceedings be concluded not later than 30 days.(b) The petitioner undertakes to make himself\n available in the office of the concerned appropriate\n authority empowered under Section 58 of the Act i.e.\n District Collector, in his/her office on 04.02.2020 at 10:30\n A.M.(c) We further direct the appropriate authority\n to positively conclude the confiscation proceeding within\n next thirty days on appearance of the petitioner. If for\n whatever reason, such proceeding cannot be concluded, in\n that event it shall be open for the authority to take such\n measures, as are permissible in law, for release of the\n vehicle in question by way of interim measure, on such\n terms as may be deemed appropriate, considering the\n attending facts and circumstances of the case.(d) If eventually, the appropriate authority\n arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to be\n confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek\n damages in accordance with law and have appropriate\n proceedings initiated against the erring officials/officers.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the\n certified copy of the order shall be made available to the\n concerned District Collector on the date so fixed.For future guidance, where parties have not\n approached this Court, we issue the following direction:-The expression "reasonable delay" used in Section\n 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered view, necessarily\n has to be within a reasonable time and with dispatch, which\n period, in our considered view, three months time is sufficient\n enough for any authority to adjudicate any issue, more so,\n when we are dealing with confiscatory proceedings.We clarify that we have not adjudicated the writ\n petition on merits and it shall be open for the parties to take all\n stand in the adjudicatory proceedings and wherever parties are\n aggrieved, it shall be open to them to initiate appropriate\n proceeding before the appellate authority.Learned counsel for the State also undertakes to\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202117/20communicate the order to the concerned appropriate authority\n i.e. District Magistrate, empowered underSection 58of the\n Act."InUmesh Sah(supra), this Court had clarified that\n the expression "reasonable delay" underSection 58of Chapter\n 6 of the Act has to be construed to be 'not more than three\n months'.It is seen that despite our observations, the\n appropriate authorities have not taken any action in initiating\n the proceedings for confiscation of the property under the Act.\n The litigants are, thus, forced to approach this Court by way of\n filing separate petitions.Thus, today we are left with two options; either to\n initiate proceedings for contempt under the provisions ofContempt of Courts Actor underArticle 215of the\n Constitution of India or ask the Chief Secretary, Government of\n Bihar, to evolve a mechanism, self serving in nature, so as to\n ensure that the provisions of the Act are implemented in letter\n and spirit, expeditiously, without any delay and with reasonable\n dispatch.Why is it that the owners of the property are forced\n to approach this Court for release of the vehicles or property?\n Is it that there is no mechanism under the Act for initiating\n confiscatory proceedings at the earliest? Is it that there is\n insufficient infrastructure with the State Government for\n ensuring implementation of the provisions of the Act?Illustratively, in the weekly list dated 27.1.2020, we\n notice that more than 75 cases stand filed and listed despite our\n order dated 9thof January, 2020. In the instant case, seizure is of\n the year 2019 and no proceedings of confiscation have\n commenced.We are of the considered view that non-implementation of the Act is generally having a very serious\n adverse consequence on the dispensation of administration of\n justice. And, peculiarly, it is only when the matter was taken up\n by the Bench hearing the petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 25266\n of 2019 (Vikki Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors.) on\n 17.12.2019that the State vehemently opposed release of the\n vehicle, contrary to the practice adopted hitherto before.Be that as it may, at this point in time, we refrain\n from passing any order under the contempt jurisdiction, but\n direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to file his\n personal affidavit dealing with each one of the issues\n highlighted (supra) as also elaborately indicating the\n mechanism which the State has or desires to evolve so as to\n prevent the litigants from directly approaching the Court for\n release of the vehicle and also ensuring early completion of the\n proceedings, be it confiscatory in nature or in an appellate\n jurisdiction, under the provisions of theBihar Prohibition and\n Excise Act, 2016.Let an affidavit in that regard be positively filed\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202118/20within one week.List this case on 6.2.2020."Further this very Bench in CWJC No.6148 of 2020,\n\n titled as Vishal Kumar Versus the State of Bihar & Anr on\n\n 04.06.2020 issued the following directions: -"In the aforesaid decisions, we have already laid\n down the time-schedule within which all proceedings are\n necessarily required to be concluded and the outer limit is\n three months from the date on which this Court has directed\n the party to make himself available before the appropriate\n authority.We clarify that petitioner undertakes to fully\n cooperate in the proceedings and we further clarify that in\n case the authorities are not able to conclude the proceedings\n within the time bound period, the vehicle/property shall be\n allowed to be released on such conditions as the appropriate\n authority may deem fit and proper.As such, petition is disposed of making the\n directions contained in the orders referred to supra,\n applicable mutatis mutandis, insofar as applicable and\n possible, to the petitioner's case."Learned counsel states that petition be disposed of in\n\n terms of the various orders passed by this Court, more so the\n\n orders referred to supra.It is seen that till date, in large number of cases,\n\n position about conclusion of the proceedings, be it underSection\n\n 58,92or 93 remains the same.We further direct that all proceedings underSection\n\n 58must positively be initiated/concluded within a period of ninety\n\n days from the date of appearance of the parties. Further,\n\n Appeal/Revision, if any, be also decided within a period of thirty\n\n days from the date of initiation, failing which the "things"\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202119/20(vehicle/property/ etc.) shall be deemed to have been released in\n\n terms of several orders passed by this Court, reference whereof\n\n stands mentioned inBunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah(supra).Wherever confiscatory proceedings stand concluded\n\n and parties could not file the appeal/revision within the statutory\n\n period of limitation, as already stands directed in several matters,\n\n if they were to initiate such proceedings within next thirty days,\n\n the plea of limitation would not come in their way of adjudication\n\n of such proceedings on merit.Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to\n\n make himself available on 26.7.2021 at 10:30 A.M. before the\n\n appropriate authority which may be in the attending facts, the\n\n Collector of the District/Appellate or the Revisional Authority,\n\n Jamui. If the Collector is not himself dealing with the matter on\n\n account of delegation of power or assignment of work to another\n\n officer of his District, he shall fix a date directing the parties to\n\n appear before the said officer, which date shall be not exceeding\n\n one week. Also, he shall inform the said authority of fixing of such\n\n date. We clarify that convenience of parties, specially during the\n\n time of Pandemic Covid-19 is of prime importance and it shall be\n\n open for the authority to hear the parties with the use of\n\n technology, i.e. Video Conferencing facility etc.\n\n Learned counsel for the State undertakes to\n Patna High Court CWJC No.10704 of 2021 dt.08-07-202120/20communicate the order to all concerned, including the District\n\n Magistrate and no certified copy of the order shall be required to\n\n be placed on the file of proceedings pending or initiated under the\n\n Act, for such order is available on the official website of the High\n\n Court & can be downloaded and/or verified from there, in the\n\n times of current Pandemic Covid-19.We only hope and expect that the Authorities under\n\n the Act shall take appropriate action at the earliest and in\n\n accordance with law, within the time schedule fixed, failing which\n\n the vehicle/property/things liable for confiscation shall be deemed\n\n to have been released without any further reference to this Court.Liberty reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to\n\n such remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law if\n\n the need so arises subsequently.Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid\n\n observations/directions.(Sanjay Karol, CJ)\n\n\n ( S. Kumar, J)\n\nsushma/-AFR/NAFR NAFR\nCAV DATE NA\nUploading Date\nTransmission Date NA |
56d4eb80-77df-5352-8789-cc50b4ac082d | court_cases | Punjab-Haryana High CourtRajesh Kumar Alias Raja vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 February, 2021Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 P AND H 991Author:Jaswant SinghBench:Jaswant SinghCRWP NO.1161-2021 --1--\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA\n AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n CRWP NO.1161-2021\n Date of Decision: 09.02.2021\n\n\nRAJESH KUMAR @ RAJA ....PETITIONER..\n\n Versus\n\n\nSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH\n\nPresent : Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate,\n for the petitioner.\n\n ****\n\nSANT PARKASH , J.(The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing\n since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court)\n\n\n Instant petition has been filed underArticles 226and227of the\n\nConstitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for\n\nsetting aside impugned order dated 24.08.2020 (P-1) passed by\n\nrespondent No.2, whereby case of the petitioner for seeking parole for six\n\nweeks has been rejected; and further directing the respondents to\n\nrelease the petitioner for 06 weeks parole.The petitioner was tried in FIR No.213 dated 03.10.2017, underSection 302IPC, Police Station Gate Hakima and accordingly, he had been\n\nconvicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment vide judgment dated\n\n19.08.2011. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence,\n\npetitioner filed an appeal before this Court, which is still pending admitted\n\n\n 1 of 4::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 21:37:02 :::CRWP NO.1161-2021 --2--for final adjudication.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner\n\napplied for six weeks parole as per the provisions in the Act and his case\n\nwas sent to the District Magistrate Amritsar, after completing all the\n\nformalities. But the parole case of the petitioner has been rejected vide\n\norder dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure P-1), solely on the ground that there\n\nis apprehension of quarrel between petitioner and his brother\n\n(complainant) as both are residents of same address.After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and\n\nperusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered opinion that the\n\nauthority rejecting the parole has exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of\n\nthe facts collected for considering the request of the petitioner for\n\nreleasing him on parole. It has been specifically mentioned in the\n\nimpugned order (Annexure P-1) that there is apprehension of quarrel\n\nbetween petitioner and his brother (complainant) as both are residents of\n\nsame address. If such type of convict is enlarged on parole, there is\n\nevery apprehension that he would indulge himself in the similar activity\n\nand would abscond.The solitary ground seeking parole is for repair of the house.Section 3 (1)(d)and10(2) (d)of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners\n\n(Temporary Release), Act, 1988 (for short, "Act") stipulates the conditions\n\nthat where the request of parole can be considered in such type of\n\neventuality. The relevant portion of Section 3 of the Act is reproduced as\n\nunder:-3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds.-(1) the State Government may, in consultation with the District2 of 4::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 21:37:02 :::CRWP NO.1161-2021 --3--Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by\n notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions\n and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for\n a period specified in sub-section (2), any prisoner, if the State\n Government is satisfied that-.......(d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause.""10. Power to make rules. The State Government may, by\n notification, by notification make rules for carrying out the\n purposes of this Act.(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the\n foregoing power, such rules may provide for--\n ............(d) the conditions on which and the manner in which prisoners\n may be released temporarily under this Act."7. Rules 4 and 8 (iii) of the Rules, which are also relevant, read\n thus:"4. Eligibility.Section 10(2)(d). - (1) A prisoner shall be entitled\n to apply for parole only after he has completed one year of his\n imprisonment after conviction and has earned his first annual\n good conduct remission under the Act.""8. Sufficient cause.sections 3(1)(d)and10(2)(d). - Undersection\n 3(1)(d)"sufficient cause" may be considered from amongst the\n following reasons, namely:-............(iii) house repairs/new construction of house owned by\n the convict. Parole for house repair shall be granted\n only once, in three years;"At the time of arguments, it is contended that the petitioner has\n\nbecome the co-sharer in the house, which was owned by his father and\n\nthe allegation against the present petitioner is that he murdered his own\n\nfather. As per the provisions contained inSection 25of the Hindu\n\nSuccession Act, 1956, the petitioner shall be divested of the inheritance\n\nof his father as he has committed the murder of his own father. For the\n\ntime being it cannot be said that the petitioner is the owner of house.\n\nOtherwise also, the Court is not inclined to accede to the request\n\nbecause his brother, at whose behest, the case against the petitioner\n\n 3 of 4::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 21:37:02 :::CRWP NO.1161-2021 --4--was registered is residing in the same premises. There is every likelihood\n\nthat any mis-happening may take place if the petitioner is released on\n\nparole.In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the instant\n\npetition and same is accordingly dismissed.(JASWANT SINGH) (SANT PARKASH)\n JUDGE JUDGE\n\n09.02.2021\nsonika\n whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No\n whether reportable: Yes/No\n\n\n\n\n 4 of 4::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 21:37:02 ::: |
a4fb1c98-7bf9-545a-b6db-f44fa7f4e8c9 | court_cases | Bangalore District CourtUnknown vs Ruckmongathan T Narasingarao on 17 November, 2020IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,\n BENGALURU CITY (CCH No.25).\n\n Dated: This the 17th day of November, 2020.\n\n Present: Sri. SACHIN KAUSHIK R.N., B.Sc., LL.M.,\n III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.\n\n\n O.S.No. 263/2017\n\n Plaintif M/s. MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL)\n SERVICES PVT. LIMITED, a company\n registered under theCompanies Act, 1956,\n and having its Branch Office at No.95, 17th\n B Main Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru\n -560095, Represented by its Executive,\n Mr.Nazeer.\n\n by Sri. Kashyap N. Naik, Advocate.\n vs .\n Defendant RUCKMONGATHAN T NARASINGARAO,\n Aged about 64 years, Son of\n Temkar Santhuramarao Narasingarao,\n Residing at No.B-26, SFS Colony,\n 4th 'B' Cross, Yelahanka New Town,\n Bengaluru -560064.\n by Smt.K.M.Rohini, Advocate.\n\n Date of institution 09-01-2017\n Nature of suit Recovery of Money\n Date of commencement of 19-07-2018\n evidence\n Date of pronouncement of 17-11-2020\n Judgment\n Total Duration Years Months Days\n 03 10 08\n 2\n O.S.No.263/2017\n\n JUDGMENTThe Plaintif, which is a Company Registered\nunder theCompanies Act, 1956has filed this Suit for\nrecovery of Rs.3,78,570/- from the Defendant along\n18% interest per annum from the date of due, i.e.,\n9-1-2014, till realization.2) The Plaintif states that it is leading\ntelecom solutions for Indian travellers going abroad\nand the Defendant has availed the services of the\nPlaintif Company from May to July 2012. The\nDefendant has cleared the bills vide credit card.\nThereafter, the Defendant had planed a trip to Japan\nfrom 30-11-2013 to 8-12-2013. The Defendant on\n26-11-2013 had taken from the Plaintif a Japan sim-\ncard vide Agreement/Sale Reference No.11000509509.\nThe Defendant also requested the Plaintif to send the\nbill to his e-mail address. The said Agreement was\nentered on 26-11-2013. The Defendant travelled to\nJapan from 30-11-2013 to 8-12-2013 and the\nDefendant raised the bill on 2-12-2013 and then\nanother bill on 9-1-2014 for total 3,78,570.88/-. The\nDefendant had used the sim for making calls, texting\nmessages and Internet. The Plaintif on non-payment\nof amount has issued notice, and Defendant has3O.S.No.263/2017\n\ncontended that he has not availed any Internet\nfacility. The Plaintif states that if the mobile data is\nkept on, there will be transmission and flow of data\nwhich becomes chargeable. Accordingly, the Plaintif\nprays to decree the Suit.3) The Defendant has filed Written Statement\nthat he has not used any Internet from 30-11-2013 to\n7-12-2013, and as such he is not liable to pay the\namount, though he admits that he has taken the sim\nand entered into Agreement. Accordingly, the\nDefendant has prayed for dismissal of the Suit.4) The Court has framed the following 4 Issues:1. Whether the Plaintif proves that the\n Defendant availed services from it to\n the tune of Rs.3,78,570/-?2. Whether the Plaintif further proves\n that it is entitled for interest at 18% as\n prayed for?3. Whether the Plaintif is entitled for the\n reliefs as prayed for?4. What Order or Decree?5) a) The Plaintif has examined its Authorised\nOfficer Executive (Credit Control), as P.W.1, and got 9\nDocuments exhibited.4O.S.No.263/2017b) The Defendant has examined himself as\nD.W.1, and got 2 documents exhibited.6) Heard Learned Advocate for Plaintif and\nperused all documents.7) The answers to the above Issues are:Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative,\n Issue No.2 - Partly in the Affirmative,\n Issue No.3 - Partly in the Affirmative,\n Issue No.4 - As per Final Order,\nfor the following:REASONS8) a) Issues No.1 to 3: As these Issues are\ninterconnected, they are taken together for\nconsideration.b) The Authorised Officer of the Plaintif\nCompany Executive (Credit Control)/P.W.1 has\nproduced the Letter of Authorization, Ex.P1, Certified\nCopy of Certificate of Incorporation, Ex.P2, Certified\nCopy of Resolution dated 7-9-2015, Ex.P3, Online\nAgreement dated 26-11-2013 is marked as Ex.P4, bill\ndated 9-1-2014, Ex.P5, Account Ledger, Ex.P6, Legal\nNotice, Ex.P7, Postal Receipt, Ex.P8 and Certificate5O.S.No.263/2017\n\nu/S.65(B)(4)of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P9. The\nDefendant has produced the e-mail Messages, Ex.D1\nand Programme of Conference in booklet, Ex.D2.c) On perusal of these documents and the\npleadings, it is admitted by the Defendant that he had\navailed services of the Plaintif on his tour to Japan\nand he admits the Agreement Ex.P4, in Paragraph No.4\nof Cross-Examination of D.W.1. In Paragraph No.6 of\nthe Agreement of D.W.1, D.W.1 clearly admits that he\nhad done 2 text bills and one international voice call\nand disputes the remaining. There is no document\ncontrary to Ex.P5, which contains itemized bills\nshowing the duration in hours, minutes and seconds,\ndistance, surcharge with amount. Ex.P6 is the amount\nalong with Gateway Credit Card charges. There is\nnothing contrary to Exs.P5 and P6, to disbelieve same,\nand the Court finds that the Plaintif has proved that\nthe Defendant is liable to pay Rs.3,78,570.88 as on\n9-1-2014. However, the interest claimed by the\nPlaintif is very high, and the Court finds that the\nPlaintif is entitled for reasonable interest, and\naccordingly Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative\nand Issue Nos.2 and 3, Partly in the Affirmative.6O.S.No.263/20179) Issue No.4 : For the aforesaid reasons, this\nCourt proceeds to pass the following:ORDER\n\n The Suit of the Plaintif is Partly\n Decreed with costs.The Defendant is Ordered to pay\n Rs.3,78,570/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy\n Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy\n Only) to the Plaintif with 9% simple interest\n per annum from 9-1-2014 till realization.Draw Decree accordingly.(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription\ncomputerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in\nOpen Court on this the 17th day of November, 2020.)\n\n\n\n (Sachin Kaushik R.N.)\n III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bengaluru.7O.S.No.263/2017\n\n\n ANNEXURE\n\nList of witnesses examined for the plaintif :P.W.1 - Mohan Kumar P\n\nList of witnesses examined for the Defendant :D.W.1 - Ruckmongathan T. Narasinga Rao\n\nList of documents exhibited for the plaintif:Ex.P1 - Authorization Letter\nEx.P2- True Copy of Certificate of Incorporation\nEx.P3- Extract of Resolution dated 7.9.2015\nEx.P4- Print out of Online Agreement\nEx.P5- Print out of Bill issued by Plaintif\nEx.P6- Ledger Account extract of Defendant\n maintained by Plaintif\nEx.P7- Office Copy of Legal Notice\nEx.P8- Postal Receipt\nEx.P9- Certificate issuedu/S.65(B)of Evidence Act\n\nList of documents exhibited for the Defendant:Ex.D1 - e-mail Messages\nEx.D2 - Programme of Conference containing Booklet\n of 127 pages\n\n\n\n\n (Sachin Kaushik R.N.)\n III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bengaluru.8\n O.S.No.263/2017 |
4983af72-dbb5-5e9a-9aff-8948b989b794 | court_cases | High Court of MeghalayaM/S Amrit Cement Limited & Ors. vs . Registrar Of Companies. on 9 November, 2021Author:W. DiengdohBench:W. DiengdohSerial No. 40\n Regular List\n\n\n\n HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA\n AT SHILLONG\n\nCrl.Petn. No. 17 of 2021\n Date of Order: 09.11.2021\nM/s Amrit Cement Limited & Ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies.\nCoram:\n Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge\n\nAppearance:\nFor the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Nongbri, Adv.\nFor the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Debnath, Adv.i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No\n Law journals etc.:ii) Whether approved for publication\n in press: Yes/No\n\n\n As prayed for by Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel for the respondent,\nsome more time may be given as he is not prepared to argue the matter today.Not objected to by Mr. P. Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n Prayer is allowed.List this matter after 2(two) weeks.Judge\n\n\nMeghalaya\n09.11.2021\n"D. Nary, PS" |
40ff4efd-62d8-5955-9573-246296f22668 | court_cases | Gujarat High CourtArun Thakor S/O Karansingh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 December, 2023Bench: M. R. MengdeyNEUTRAL CITATION\n\n\n\n\n R/CR.MA/2660/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2023\n\n undefined\n\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER\n CHARGESHEET) NO. 2660 of 2023\n\n==========================================================\n ARUN THAKOR S/O KARANSINGH SIBBUSINDH\n Versus\n STATE OF GUJARAT\n==========================================================\nAppearance:\nMR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1\nMR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1\n==========================================================\n\n CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY\n\n Date : 06/12/2023\n\n ORAL ORDER1. The Applicant has filed this Application underSection 439of the Code\nof Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in\nconnection with FIR being C.R. No. 11199021211890/2021 registered with\nAnkleshwar GIDC Police Station, Bharuch.2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the\nRespondent - State.3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant\nhas good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by\nkeeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that\nthe applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be\nimposed by this Court if released on bail.4. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application\nfor grant of regular bail inter alia contending that the Applicant had called the\ndeceased and thereafter the deceased was taken with an intention of robbingPage 1 of 4Downloaded on : Wed Dec 06 20:49:55 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION\n\n\n\n\n R/CR.MA/2660/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2023\n\n undefined\n\n\n\n\nhim with a money of Provident Fund and that the Applicant is the main\naccused and he is the main perpetrator in the crime. Therefore, looking to the\nnature and gravity of offence, it is requested that, this Court may not exercise\nthe discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.5. As per the case of the prosecution, the role attributed to the present\nApplicant is to the effect that after having called the deceased he was taken by\nthe Applicant and the other coaccused persons and thereafter the other\ncoaccused persons have inflicted blows on the head of the deceased with a\nwooden log and thereafter the Applicant inflicted knife blows on his neck. In\nthis regard, as per the PM Report, no external injuries in the form of incised\nwounds are caused to the deceased on his neck. Therefore, the theory of\ninflicting knife blows on the deceased does not support the case of the other\nside. Moreover the cause of death was due to Haemorrhagic shock due to\nsevere Crauiocerebral injuries following severe head injuries. Admittedly, no\ninjuries have been caused by the present Applicant on the head of the deceased.\nConsidering the aforesaid aspects, the Application deserves consideration. This\ncourt has also considered the following aspects:(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are mainly\n3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case,\navailability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and\nhampering with the witnesses by the accused.(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the\nApplicant Accused is not likely to flee away.(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 21.11.2021.(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofSanjay\nChandra v. C.B.I. Reportedin (2012) 1 SCC 40.6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the\nrecord produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of thePage 2 of 4Downloaded on : Wed Dec 06 20:49:55 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION\n\n\n\n\n R/CR.MA/2660/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2023\n\n undefined\n\n\n\n\ncase, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant\nAccused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant\naccused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands\nallowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also\nthe earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned\nSessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The\nApplicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the\naforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of\nthe like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following\nconditions that he shall:(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any\nperson acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from\ndisclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the\nevidence.(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of\nresidence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of\nexecuting the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission\nof the trial Court.(d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties\nbefore the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing\nimmediately to the trial Court.(e) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or\nancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before\nthe Trial Court, if any.(f) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court(g) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If the Applicant\ndoes not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect.Page 3 of 4Downloaded on : Wed Dec 06 20:49:55 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION\n\n\n\n\n R/CR.MA/2660/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2023\n\n undefined7. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try\nthe case. It would be open for the Trial Court concerned to give time to furnish\nthe solvency certificate if prayed for.8. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Trial Court\nconcerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to\nlaw. The Authorities will release the Applicant forthwith only if the Applicant\nis not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.9. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the\nprima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.10. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.(M. R. MENGDEY,J)\nJ.N.W / 67Page 4 of 4Downloaded on : Wed Dec 06 20:49:55 IST 2023 |
0cd8e3b5-d47e-565f-898c-00ad5e20fa4d | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nMadhya Pradesh High Court\nManish Rishiswar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 September, 2021Author: Sheel Nagu\n 1 WP.4686.2019\n\n The High Court of Madhya Pradesh\n WP.4686.2019\n\n [Manish Rishiswar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.]\n\nGwalior dated 03.09.2021\n\n Shri Suraj Pratap Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for petitioner.\n\n Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for\n\nrespondent/State.\n1. This petition as PIL has been filed raising the public cause that\n\nwithout authority of law the mining officers under the Collector, Bhind\n\n(M.P.) are releasing the vehicles which were seized owing to their\n\ninvolvement in mining offence u/S.53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules,\n\n1996 ["1996 Rules" for brevity]. In this background, the prayer sought\n\nis as follows:\n\n "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be\n pleased to allow the petition and prayed that this Hon'ble\n Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondent No.2 to\n inquired in to the matter with respect of misappropriation of\n State loss and fund and initiate criminal action against the\n respondent No.4 and 5 for their criminal action, in the\n interest of justice."\n\n2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.\n\n3. The State in its reply filed on 15.07.2019 submitted that show-\n\ncause notices have been issued against the private respondents on\n\n22.02.2019 to which the private respondents have submitted their reply\n\nwhich are under consideration. In this factual scenario, the State\n\nsought dismissal of the petition on the ground that suitable action in\n\nlaw has been initiated against private respondents.\n\n3.1 Thereafter, this Court by order dated 05.08.2019 was dissatisfied\n 2 WP.4686.2019\n\nwith the reply which led to filing of additional reply by the State on\n\n05.10.2019 justifying release of vehicles involving in mining offence\n\nby relying upon enabling provision u/R.53 of 1996 Rules which\n\nempowered the Collector to compound the mining offence.\n\n3.2 Thereafter, this Court gauging the gravity of situation where the\n\nCollector despite having concurrent powers of imposing penalty\n\nand/or confiscating the vehicle found involved in mining offence, was\n\nnot exercising the power of confiscation leading to a situation that the\n\nvehicles involved in mining offence after paying nominal\n\ncompounding fee were being released to be again available for\n\ncommitting similar kind of offences.\n\n3.3 This impelled this Court to pass an interim order on 29.11.2019\n\nby relying upon the Special Bench decision in the case of "Rajkumar\n\nSahu Vs. State of M.P. and Others [2019 (2) M.P.L.J. 438]" which\n\ninter alia lays down that even after payment of penalty under the\n\nprovisions of Rule 53 of 1996 Rules the Competent Authority still is\n\nvested with the power to confiscate the vehicle in question. The said\n\ninterim order was passed on 29.11.2019 by directing the State to reveal\n\nthe number of cases in which course of imposition of penalty and\n\nreleasing the vehicle on one hand and imposition of penalty and as\n\nwell as forfeiture on the other was adopted. This Court also observed\n\nin this interim order that if the power of confiscation was not exercised\n\nit would prima facie demonstrate mala fide on the part of the\n\ncompetent authority. However, this issue was directed to be taken up\n\nlater.\n 3 WP.4686.2019\n\n3.4 Thereafter, the State filed a compliance report on 25.01.2020\n\naccompanied by tabular illustration of various vehicles of different\n\ndescription involved in illegal extraction/transportation of minor\n\nmineral pertaining to the year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Except\n\nin one case pertaining to the vehicle JCB machine bearing registration\n\nnumber UP75-M-8280, the power of confiscation was exercised but in\n\nregard to all the other more than 1000 vehicles penalty was imposed\n\nand the vehicle was released without exercising the power of\n\nconfiscation.\n\n4. This Court need not dwell upon this issue of making an enquiry\n\nand taking criminal action against the erring officials or the private\n\nrespondents but deems it appropriate in the larger public interest to\n\nissue certain directions with the object of curbing the rampant,\n\nindiscriminate mining and transportation of minor mineral in nine\n\ndistricts falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench:\n\n "1. The power of Competent Authority u/R.53 of 1996\n\n Rules is a concurrent power which makes available the mode\n\n of penalty or/and the mode of confiscation of the vehicle.\n\n 2. Discretion is available to the Competent Authority to\n\n decide on the facts and circumstances attending a particular\n\n case of mining offence as to whether public interest would be\n\n served in imposing penalty alone and releasing the vehicle or\n\n in imposing penalty and as well confiscating the vehicle.\n\n While exercising this discretion, the Competent Authority\n\n should record reasons for adopting one of the two available\n 4 WP.4686.2019\n\n modes and also for not adopting the other.\n\n 3. The M.P. Sand [Mining, Transportation, Storage and\n\n Trading] Rules, 2019 ["2019 Sand Rules" for brevity] which\n\n have now come into force with effect from 30.08.2019 lay\n\n down complete code for dealing with cases of mining\n\n offences of illegal quarrying, transportation and storage of\n\n sand. Thus, the provisions of said 2019 Sand Rules would\n\n alone apply with effect from 30.08.2019 for dealing with the\n\n mining offences qua minor mineral of sand and not 1996\n\n Rules.\n\n 4. However, for all other minor minerals except sand the\n\n provisions of 1996 Rules would continue to apply\n\n notwithstanding the 2019 Sand Rules.\n\n 5. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands\n\n disposed of.\n\n 6. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Collectors\n\n of all nine districts falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this\n\n Bench and as well as to the counsel for the State.\n\n No cost.\n\n\n (Sheel Nagu) (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)\n Judge Judge\n 03.09.2021 03.09.2021\n pd\n\n Digitally signed by PAWAN\n\n\nPAWAN\n DHARKAR\n DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF\n MADHYA PRADESH BENCH\n GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF\n\n\nDHARK\n MADHYA PRADESH BENCH\n GWALIOR, postalCode=474011,\n st=Madhya Pradesh,\n 2.5.4.20=345b3604d572ed9dd1\n\n\n\nAR\n 492fe82dc3b1eef67eff2cb59f3a\n c97e920ac264de7828,\n cn=PAWAN DHARKAR\n Date: 2021.09.05 10:23:55\n +05'30' |
4b2b2494-252a-5cbd-b46a-bcfb413cdc10 | court_cases | Madhya Pradesh High CourtMansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2021Author:Subodh AbhyankarBench:Subodh Abhyankar:1: Cr.A. No.310-2017\n\n THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE\n SINGLE BENCH\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 310-2017\n\n Mansingh s/o Onkarsingh Mayda Bheel\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nCoram : Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the appellant.\n Shri Vismit Panot, learned Panel Lawyer for the counsel for the\nrespondent/State.\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Whether approved for reporting : No\n\n\n JUDGMENT(Delivered on 28 / 09 /2021)1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal underSection 374of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by judgment dated\n\n07/05/2016 passed by the Sessions Judge & Special Judge, District-\n\nRatlam in S.T. No.71/2017, whereby he has been convicted\n\nsentenced him as under:-Conviction Sentence\n Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in\n\n lieu of fine\n 363 (A)IPC3 Years RI 1000/- 6 months\n 5(L)(2) POCSO 10 Years RI 5000/-\n\n r/w 6\n 342IPC6 months RI 02 years2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 6.8.2013, at around\n\n12 o' clock in the noon, when the prosecutrix,around 14 years of\n :2: Cr.A. No.310-2017\n\nold was alone at her house as her parents had gone to the market,\n\nthe appellant came to her house and told her that he would marry\n\nher and also told her to come with him and as the prosecutrix\n\nrefused, he threatened her of dire consequences and thus, the\n\nappellant took her to Gram Sakad to his relatives where she was\n\nkept in a room for around 10 days where the appellant raped her.\n\nThereafter the appellant took her to Nimbaheda, Rajasthan where\n\nthey stayed together after he rented a room and where also she was\n\nsubjected to rape. The appellant had also told her that his father\n\nhas already paid the money for her as per their custom.3. It is further the case of the prosecution that when the\n\nappellant was sleeping two days prior to the Deepawali, at that\n\ntime the prosecutrix slipped out of the house and came to her\n\nmother and father's village and thus, on 06.08.2013, the First\n\nInformation Report was lodged in the police station at Crime No.\n\n122/2013 under the aforesaid sections. It is not disputed that the\n\nprosecutrix also got pregnant during the time when she resided\n\nwith the appellant, which has also been proved by P.W.8 Dr. Preeti\n\nAgrawal.4. Thus, the question before this Court that falls for\n\nconsideration is that whether the prosectrix was major at the time\n\nof the incident and whether she was also a consenting party.5. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the only\n\ndocument which is placed on record is the scholar register, Ex.P/6-\n\nC, mentioned as Chhatra ka Prashansa Patra proved by the P.W.\n :3: Cr.A. No.310-2017\n\n6 Prakash Rawat, the Assistant Teacher in the Government Primary\n\nSchool Kuwanjhagar and according to this document, the\n\nprosecutrix's date of birth is 5.4.1999. Relying upon the aforesaid\n\ndocument, the learned Judge of the trial court has held that at the\n\ntime of incident i.e., on 06.08.2013, the prosecutrix was taken by\n\nthe appellant she was aged 14 years 14 months and one day.6. So far as this document Ex.P/6-C is concerned, the date of\n\nbirth of the prosectrux is mentioned as 5.4.1999 and although there\n\nare some interpolations apparent but the said interpolation are\n\nhardly relevant as in the absence of any authentic document\n\nregarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the\n\nconsidered opinion is that, this said document cannot be relied\n\nupon to determine the age of the prosecutrix. This Court also finds\n\nthat, P.W.4 Kunwaribai, mother of the prosectrix, has stated that\n\nshe got married around 18 years ago and she has four children and\n\nthe prosecutrix being the eldest one, was born after one and a half\n\nyears of her marriage . She has denied that the prosecutrix was 19\n\nyears old. P.W.5 Bahadur, father of the prosecutrix has stated that\n\nhis marriage was solemnized around 20 years ago and after two-\n\nthree years of their marriage, the prosecutrix was born in the house\n\nonly and he had also not given any intimation about her birth to the\n\nPanchayat. In such circumstances, in the absence of any reliable\n\ndocument on record to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix, it\n\nis apparent that the prosecutrix's age can not be not 14 years and 4\n\nmonths as she appears to be over and above 18 years and as such it\n :4: Cr.A. No.310-2017\n\ncan be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove her age\n\npositively, to be below 18 years. Thus, it is held that the\n\nprosecutrix was above 18 years old at the time of the incident.7. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, this\n\nCourt in the case of Narayansingh S/o Sajjansingh Sisodiya Vs.\n\nState of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1100 of 2017)\n\ndecided on 31.5.2021 has held that :"7] Regarding the admissibility of the documents\n proved in support of the age of the prosecutix and their probative\n value, the Supreme Court in the case ofSatpal Singh v. State of\n\n Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714 has held as under:-19. So far as the issue as to whether the prosecutrix was a major or\n minor, it has also been elaborately considered by the courts below.In fact, the school register has been produced and proved by the\n Headmaster, Mohinder Singh (PW 3). According to him, Rajinder\n Kaur (PW 15), the prosecutrix, was admitted in Government\n School, Sharifgarh, District Kurukshetra on 2-5-1990 on the basis\n of school leaving certificate issued by Government Primary School,\n Dhantori. In the school register, her date of birth has been recorded\n as 13-2-1975. The question does arise as to whether the date of\n birth recorded in the school register is admissible in evidence and\n can be relied upon without any corroboration. This question\n becomes relevant for the reason that in cross-examination, Shri\n Mohinder Singh, Headmaster (PW 3), has stated that the date of\n birth is registered in the school register as per the information\n furnished by the person/guardian accompanying the students, who\n comes to the school for admission and the school authorities do not\n verify the date of birth by any other means.20. A document is admissible underSection 35of the Evidence Act,\n 1872 (hereinafter called as "theEvidence Act") being a public\n document if prepared by a government official in the exercise of his\n official duty. However, the question does arise as to what is the\n authenticity of the said entry for the reason that admissibility of a\n document is one thing and probity of it is different.21.InState of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh6this Court dealt with\n a similar contention and held as under:"40. ... Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative\n value quite another--these two aspects cannot be combined. A\n document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction\n and weight or its probative value may be nil. ... (SCC p. 138, para40)53. ... where a report is given by a responsible officer, which is\n based on evidence of witnesses and documents and has a statutory\n flavour in that it is given not merely by an administrative officer but\n under the authority of a statute, its probative value would indeed be\n very high so as to be entitled to great weight. (SCC p. 143, para 53)145. (4) The probative value of documents which, however ancient\n they may be, do not disclose sources of their information or have\n not achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little. (SCC p. 171, para145)":5: Cr.A. No.310-201722. Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as to whether the\n entry contained therein has any probative value may still be required\n to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case.The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by the judgments of\n this Court inRam Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar; Ram Murti v.\n State of Haryana Dayaram v. Dawalatshah;Harpal Singh v. State\n of H.P.;Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P.;Babloo Pasi v. State\n of Jharkhand;Desh Raj v. Bodh RajandRam Suresh Singh v.\n Prabhat Singh. In these cases, it has been held that even if the entry\n was made in an official record by the official concerned in the\n discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may\n require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry\n has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been\n exhibited and proved. The standard of proof required herein is the\n same as in other civil and criminal cases. Such entries may be in any\n public document i.e. school register, voters list or family register\n prepared under the rules and regulations, etc.in force, and may be\n admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act as held in Mohd.\n Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P. and Santenu Mitra v. State of W.B.23. There may be conflicting entries in the official document and in\n such a situation, the entry made at a later stage has to be accepted\n and relied upon. (Vide Durga Singh v. Tholu.)24. While dealing with a similar issue inBirad Mal Singhvi v.\n Anand Purohit, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 619, para 15)\n "15. ... To render a document admissible underSection 35, three\n conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be\n one in a public or other official book, register or record; secondly, it\n must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly, it\n must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or\n any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law.\n An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is\n relevant and admissible underSection 35of the Act, but entry\n regarding to the age of a person in a school register is of not\n much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the\n absence of the material on which the age was recorded."25. A Constitution Bench of this Court, while dealing with a similar\n issue inBrij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, observed as\n under: (AIR p. 286, para 18)\n "18. ... The reason why an entry made by a public servant in a\n public or other official book, register, or record stating a fact in\n issue or a relevant fact has been made relevant is that when a public\n servant makes it himself in the discharge of his official duty, the\n probability of its being truly and correctly recorded is high. That\n probability is reduced to a minimum when the public servant\n himself is illiterate and has to depend on somebody else to make\n the entry. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the High\n Court is right in holding that the entry made in an official record\n maintained by the illiterate chowkidar, by somebody else at his\n request does not come withinSection 35of the Evidence Act."26.InVishnu v. State of Maharashtra20while dealing with a\n similar issue, this Court observed that very often parents furnish\n incorrect date of birth to the school authorities to make up the age\n in order to secure admission for their children. For determining the\n age of the child, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is\n supported by unimpeccable documents. In case the date of birth\n depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the\n unimpeccable evidence of reliable persons and contemporaneous\n documents like the date of birth register of the municipal\n corporation, government hospital/nursing home, etc., the entry in\n the school register is to be discarded.27. Thus, the entry in respect of age of the child seeking admission,\n made in the school register by semi-literate chowkidar at the\n instance of a person who came along with the child having no\n personal knowledge of the correct date of birth, cannot be relied\n upon.:6: Cr.A. No.310-201728. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised that the entry\n made in the official record by an official or person authorised\n in performance of an official duty is admissible underSection\n 35of the Evidence Act but the party may still ask the\n court/authority to examine its probative value. The\n authenticity of the entry would depend as to on whose\n instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what\n was his source of information. Thus, entry in school\n register/certificate requires to be proved in accordance with\n law. Standard of proof for the same remains as in any other\n civil and criminal case.29. In case, the issue is examined in the light of the aforesaid\n settled legal proposition, there is nothing on record to corroborate\n the date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded in the school register. It\n is not possible to ascertain as to who was the person who had given\n her date of birth as 13-2-1975 at the time of initial admission in the\n primary school. More so, it cannot be ascertained as who was the\n person who had recorded her date of birth in the primary school\n register. More so, the entry in respect of the date of birth of the\n prosecutrix in the primary school register has not been produced\n and proved before the trial court. Thus, in view of the above, it\n cannot be held with certainty that the prosecutrix was a major. Be\n that as it may, the issue of majority becomes irrelevant if the\n prosecution successfully establishes that it was not a consent case.(emphasis supplied)\n\n 8] A perusal of the aforesaid decision clearly reveals that\n merely production of the scholar register in itself does not\n tantamount to the proof of the age of the prosecutrix unless the\n same is substantiated by some other unimpeachable evidence of\n reliable persons and contemporaneous documents like the\n date of birth register of the municipal corporation,\n government hospital/nursing home, etc.\n Learned Judge of the Trial Court has also relied upon the fact that the\n documents produced by the prosecution in respect of age of the\n prosecutrix, including Exhibit P/15(C) dated 12/06/2012 which is the\n scholar register of the subsequent school of the prosecutrix, and it is\n held that it is much prior to the date of offence in the year 2016,\n hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid document.In the\n considered opinion of this Court, in the light of the aforesaid\n decision in the case ofSatpal Singh(supra), the finding recorded by\n the learned Judge of the Trial Court only on the basis of scholar\n register cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law and thus, this\n court finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the\n prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years at the time of the\n\n incident."(emphasis supplied as original)8. So far as the consent of the prosecutrix regarding her stay\n\nand the relationship with the appellant are concerned, it is found\n :7: Cr.A. No.310-2017\n\nthat the prosecutrix went missing on 6.8.2013 whereas the FIR to\n\nthis effect was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix only on\n\n06.11.2013 i.e. after around 2 moths, and there is no document\n\navailable on record to show that any attempt was made by the\n\nparents of prosecutrix to lodge her missing person report. Thus, it\n\nis apparent that the parents of the prosecutrix were well aware of\n\nthe prosecutrix's absconsion with the appellant.9. So far as the conduct of the prosecutrix is concerned, she\n\nhas admitted that there were other houses also adjacent to her own\n\nhouse and she had walked from her house to another village with\n\nthe appellant which took them half an hour to reach their\n\ndestination. Thereafter, she travelled with the appellant in a public\n\ntransport bus to villege Nimbaheda and she has admitted that she\n\ndid not inform anybody that the appellant was forcibly taking her.\n\nFrom village-Nimbaheda they also went to village-Javad and she\n\nhas admitted that the appellant used to leave her at home while he\n\nused to go on work. Although she has also stated that when the\n\nappellant used to go out of his house he used to close the door\n\nfrom outside but it is an omission. She has also stated that even\n\nwhen she used to go to answer the natures call, at that time also the\n\nappellant used to accompany her but this statement, in the\n\nconsidered opinion of this Court appears rather preposterous\n\nespecially when she has also admitted that she used to cook the\n\nmeal at the home. Although she has denied that when she came\n\nback to her father's house there were talks of compromise in the\n :8: Cr.A. No.310-2017\n\nmatter and she has also denied that the compromise took place for\n\nconsideration of Rs.2 Lakhs which amount was given to her father.\n\nShe has also denied that she got pregnant and had an abortion.10. Prosecutrix's mother Kunwaribai P.W.4 has also stated that\n\nshe has tried to lodge the missing person report of the prosecutrix\n\nbut it was not recorded. She has also admitted that 2-3 months\n\nprior to the present incident, the prosecutrix had eloped with the\n\npresent appellant only for which also a report was lodged at\n\nBangrod police station and she has denied that when her daughter\n\nfirst time eloped, she did not lodge any report. This clearly means\n\nthat the prosecutrix, on earlier occasion also had gone along with\n\nthe appellant. Although P.W.4 Kunwaribai has denied that there\n\nwas any agreement between them and has also denied that out of\n\nRs.2 Lakhs she has already received Rs.1.5 lakhs from the\n\nappellant's side in a village panchayat but the prosecutrix's father,\n\nP.W. 5 Bahadur has however admitted that there was a Panchayat\n\nwhen his daughter went away with the appellant but the girl was\n\nstill not returned.11. The appellant, in his defence has also proved vide Ex.D/1\n\nby D.W.1 Tolaram, who has stated that the prosectutrix had gone\n\nwith the appellant on two occasions and thereafter there was an\n\nagreement with the Panchayat which is called Bhanjagada\n\n(agreement) on which various villagers had signed including the\n\nP.W.5 Bahadur, father of the prosecutrix. It is apparent that the\n\ndocument Ex.D/1 has not been put to the father of the prosexutrix,\n :9: Cr.A. No.310-2017\n\nas he was examined on 11.8.20214 whereas the document is\n\nproved in the court on 6.10.2017.12. Be that as it may, from the aforementioned discussion, it\n\nis apparent that the prosecutrix has travelled excessively with the\n\nappellant from the public transport including the bus and train as\n\nwell, which she has admitted in para 6 of her deposition. In such\n\ncircumstances, it is held that the prosecutrix was a consenting\n\nparty under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has\n\nno hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecutrix was\n\nmajor and was a consenting party.13. In such circumstances, the conviction of the appellant cannot\n\nbe sustained and he is entitled to the benefit of doubt and is liable\n\nto be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.14. Thus, the appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgment\n\ndated 07/05/2016 is hereby set aside. The appellant stands\n\nacquitted and he be released immediately from the jail, if he is\n\nnot required in any other case.(Subodh Abhyankar)\n Judge\n\n\nmoniDigitally signed by MONI RAJUDate: 2021.09.28 18:06:09+05'30':10: Cr.A. No.310-2017THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE\n Criminal Appeal No. 310-2017\n ( Mansingh s/o Onkarsingh Mayda Bheel vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)\n\nIndore, Dated: 16/09/2021\n\n Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the appellant.\n Shri Vismit Panot, learned Panel Lawyer for the\nrespondent/State.Arguments heard.Reserved for judgment.(SUBODH ABHYANKAR )\n JUDGE\n\n\n\nIndore, Dated: 28/09/2021\n\n Judgment delivered, signed and dated.(SUBODH ABHYANKAR )\n JUDGE\n\n\n\nMoniDigitally signed by MONI RAJUDate: 2021.09.28 18:06:22+05'30' |
1f5a4f06-e6cc-598c-a653-a3c1b3a14500 | court_cases | Gujarat High CourtSarvar @ Kadva Abdul Kalim ... vs Commissioner Of Police, ... on 28 April, 2023Bench: A.S. SupehiaC/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023\n\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6082 of 2023\n\n\nFOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:\n\n\nHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA\n\nand\nHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI\n\n==========================================================\n\n1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed\n to see the judgment ?\n\n2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\n3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy\n of the judgment ?\n\n4 Whether this case involves a substantial question\n of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution\n of India or any order made thereunder ?\n\n==========================================================\n SARVAR @ KADVA ABDUL KALIM BHADBHUJA (BHURJI) THROUGH\n BHURJI MARJINBANU MOHMAD SARVAR\n Versus\n COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD CITY\n==========================================================\nAppearance:\nVAIBHAVI D RAVAL(8466) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1\nDS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3\nMR.JAY MEHTA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2\n==========================================================\n\n CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA\n and\n HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI\n\n Date : 28/04/2023\n\n ORAL JUDGMENT(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI)Page 1 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/20231. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.2. The present petition is directed against the order of detention dated\n21.03.2023 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of\npowers conferred under section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social\nActivities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner-\ndetenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.3. Learned advocate for the detenue submitted that the impugned order\nof detention of the detenue requires to be quashed and set aside because the\ndetaining authority has passed order of detention solely on the ground of\nregistration of two FIRs, first for the offences underSections 392,397&114of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the G.P.Act and\nanother for the offences underSections 324,294(b),114of the IPC and\n135(1) of the G.P.Act respectively by itself cannot bring the case of the\ndetenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act.\nLearned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that illegal activity\nlikely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot\nhave any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the\nmost, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement\nof witnesses, registration of above FIR/s, no other relevant and cogent\nmaterial is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue\nwould not fall under the category of breach of public order. Learned\nadvocate further submitted that it is not possible to hold, on the basis of the\nfacts of the present case, that activity of the detenue with respect to the\ncriminal cases had affected and disturbed the social fabric of society,\neventually which would become threat to the very existence of normal and\nroutine life of people at large or that on the basis of registration of criminal\ncases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it\ndifficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law byPage 2 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023\n\n\n\n\ndisturbing public order. It is also submitted that the detaining authority has\nalso not applied its mind to the fact that the petitioner is released on bail in\nall offences.4. Learned AGP for the respondent-State supported the detention order\npassed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidences\nwere found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to\nthe detenue indicate that detenue is in habit of indulging into the activity as\ndefined under section 2(c) of the Act and considering the facts of the case,\nthe detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and\ndetention order deserves to be upheld by this Court.5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering\nthe documents and material available on record of the case, prima facie, it is\nfound that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority\ncannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the\noffences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as\nrequired under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to\ntake care of the situation and that the allegations levelled against the detenue\ncannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the detenue within\nthe realm of meaning of section 2(c) of the Act. Unless and until, the\nmaterial is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and\nmenace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and\nthat all social apparatus goes in peril disturbing public order at the instance\nof such person, in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the detenue is a\nperson which would fall within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act.\nExcept general statements, there is no material on record which shows that\nthe detenue is acting in such a manner, which would become dangerous to\nthe public order.Page 3 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/20236. At this juncture, we would like to put reliance upon certain case laws\nof the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court has crystalized the position of\nlaw in a very crystal manner.6.1 In the case ofSushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, AIR 2022\nS.C. 4715 before Apex Court, the fact of the accused/detenue being released\non bail for the offences under theNDPS Act, 1985 was suppressed and\nhence, the Apex Court has held that such vital fact could not have been\nwithheld by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. In the\npresent case, though the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the\ndetenue is released on bail in all these offences, the order does not anyway\ncontain that the detaining authority has applied its mind to the afore-noted\nfacts. The Apex Court has observed as under in aforesaid judgment:"22. As noted above, in the case on hand, in both the cases relied upon by the\n detaining authority for the purpose of preventively detaining the appellant herein, the\n appellant was already ordered to be released on bail by the concerned Special\n Court. Indisputably, we do not find any reference of this fact in the proposal\n forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District while requesting to\n process the order of detention. The reason for laying much stress on this aspect of\n the matter is the fact that the appellant though arrested in connection with the\n offence under theNDPS Act, 1985, the Special Court, Tripura thought fit to release\n the appellant on bail despite the rigours ofSection 37of the NDPS Act, 1985.Section\n 37the NDPS Act, 1985 reads thus:"Section 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained inthe Codeof Criminal\n Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)--(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences undersection 19orsection 24orsection 27Aand also for offences involving commercial quantity shall\n be released on bail or on his own bond unless--(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for\n such release, andPage 4 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that\n there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and\n that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in\n addition to the limitations underthe Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or\n any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail."23. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would indicate that the accused\n arrested under theNDPS Act, 1985 can be ordered to be released on bail only if the\n Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is\n not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.\n If the appellant herein was ordered to be released on bail despite the rigours ofSection 37the NDPS Act, 1985, then the same is suggestive that the Court concerned\n might not have found any prima facie case against him. Had this fact been brought to\n the notice of the detaining authority, then it would have influenced the mind of the\n detaining authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make an\n order of detention. The State never thought to even challenge the bail orders passed\n by the special court releasing the appellant on bail.24.In Asha Devi v. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat and Anr.,\n 1979 Crl LJ 203, this Court pointed out that:"... if material or vital facts which would influence the minds of the detaining\n authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make the\n detention order, are not placed before or are not considered by the detaining\n authority it would vitiate its subjective satisfaction rendering the detention\n order illegal."25. ...........26. From the above decisions, it emerges that the requisite subjective satisfaction, the\n formation of which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order will get\n vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and weighed\n the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and influence his\n mind are either withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority or ignored and\n not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention order.27. It is clear to our mind that in the case on hand at the time when the detaining\n authority passed the detention order, this vital fact, namely, that the appellant detenu\n had been released on bail by the Special Court, Tripura despite the rigours ofSection 37of the NDPS Act, 1985, had not been brought to the notice and on the\n other hand, this fact was withheld and the detaining authority was given to\n understand that the trial of those criminal cases was pending."6.2 In the case ofVijay Narain v. State of Bihar, 1984 (3) S.C.C. 14, the\nApex Court asserted that when a person is enlarged on bail by a competentPage 5 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023\n\n\n\n\nCourt, great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an\norder of preventive detention order which is based on the same charge,\nwhich is to be tried by the criminal Court. It is also noticed by this Court\nthat the order does not refer to any application for cancellation of bail\nhaving been filed by the State authorities.6.3 In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nShaik Nazeen vs. State of Telanga andOrs. and Syed Sabeena vs. State of\nTelangana and Ors. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2022 (@ SLP\n(Crl.) No.4260 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.909 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.)\nNo.4283 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made\nfollowing observations in paragraph Nos.17 and 18. The excerpts of\nparagraph Nos.17 and 18 are as under :-"17. In any case, the State is not without a remedy, as in case the detenu is much a\n menace to the society as is being alleged, then the prosecution should seek for the\n cancellation of his bail and/or move an appeal to the Higher Court. But definitely\n seeking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy under the\n facts and circumstances of the case.18. In fact, in a recent decision of this Court, the Court had to make an observation\n regarding the routine and unjustified use of the Preventive Detention Law in the State\n of Telangana. This has been done in the case of Mallada K. Sri Ram Vs. The State of\n Telangana & Ors. 2022 6 SCALE 50, it was stated as under: "17.It is also relevant to\n note, that in the last five years, this Court has quashed over five detention orders\n under the Telangana Act of 1986 for inter alia incorrectly applying the standard for\n maintenance of public order and relying on stale materials while passing the orders\n of detention. At least ten detention orders under the Telangana Act of 1986 have been\n set aside by the High Court of Telangana in the last one year itself. These numbers\n evince a callous exercise of the exceptional power of preventive detention by the\n detaining authorities and the respondent-state. We direct the respondents to take\n stock of challenges to detention orders pending before the Advisory Board, High\n Court and Supreme Court and evaluate the fairness of the detention order against\n lawful standards."6.4 The distinction between a disturbance to "law and order" and a\ndisturbance to public order has been clearly settled by a Constitution Bench\ninRam Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740. The Court has\nheld that every disorder does not meet the threshold of a disturbance toPage 6 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023\n\n\n\n\npublic order, unless it affects the community at large. The Constitution\nBench held:"51. We have here a case of detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules\n which permits apprehension and detention of a person likely to act in a manner\n prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It follows that if such a person is not\n detained public disorder is the apprehended result. Disorder is no doubt prevented\n by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which\n includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and\n cataclysmic happenings. Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of\n disorders or only some of them? The answer to this serves to distinguish "public\n order" from "law and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them.\n Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace\n does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is\n disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to\n maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were\n disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and\n one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and\n order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be\n imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before if can be said to\n affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere\n disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for\n action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public\n order are. A District Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to\n prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order\n under ordinary circumstances.52. It will thus appear that just as "public order" in the rulings of this Court (earlier\n cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security\n of State", "law and order" also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those\n affecting "public order". One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order\n represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order\n and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act\n may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order\n but not security of the State. By using the expression "maintenance of law and\n order" the District Magistrate was widening his own field of action and was adding\n a clause to the Defence of India Rules."(emphasis supplied)\n6.5 In the case ofMallada K Sri Ram vs. State of Telangana, 2022 (6)\nScale 50, the Apex Court has observed as under:-"15 A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the\n standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order". In this case, the\n apprehension of a disturbance to public order owing to a crime that was reported\n over seven months prior to the detention order has no basis in fact. The\n apprehension of an adverse impact to public order is a mere surmise of the\n detaining authority, especially when there have been no reports of unrest since\n detenu was released on bail on 8 January 2021 and detained with effect from 26Page 7 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023\n\n\n\n\n June 2021. The nature of the allegations against the detenu are grave. However, the\n personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive\n detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding. The\n powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian. Tracing their\n origin to the colonial era, they have been continued with strict constitutional\n safeguards against abuse.Article 22of the Constitution was specifically inserted\n and extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the exceptional\n powers of preventive detention do not devolve into a draconian and arbitrary\n exercise of state authority. The case at hand is a clear example of non-application of\n mind to material circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of\n the detaining authority. The two FIRs which were registered against the detenu are\n capable of being dealt by the ordinary course of criminal law ."6.6 It will be fruitful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court inPushker Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 S.C. 852, where the\ndistinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' has been clearly laid\ndown. The Court observed as follows :-"Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only\n some categories thereof ? It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific\n persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and\n assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but\n not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive\n authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be\n detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. The contravention of\n any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must\n affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of\n demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect\n the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace\n of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a\n secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to\n disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act\n but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act ."7. Same fact situation exists in the State and number of detention orders\nunder PASA are passed day in and day out, relying on stale material and\nwithout drawing distinction between "law and order" problem and "public\norder" problem as mentioned under the PASA Act.8. In case of K.Nageswara Naidu Versus Collector And District MagistratePage 8 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023\n\n\n\n\nKadapa, 2012 (13) SCC 585, the Apex Court has reiterated thus:"4. After the aforesaid decision, the same issue again came up for consideration\n before a two-Judge Bench of this Court inMunagala Yadamma v. State of Andhra\n Pradesh and Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 386, where a similar order had been passed under the\n 1986 Act. In the said case, the detention order had been passed in regard to the detenu,\n who had been indulging in illicit distillation of liquor and the same submission was\n advanced on behalf of the State, that recourse to ordinary law would involve more time\n and would not be an effective deterrent in preventing a person from indulging in\n prejudicial activities. In the said decision while considering the decision, both in\n Rekha's case (supra) and Reddeiah 's ease (supra) and also in Yumman Ongbi Lemhi\n Leima's case (supra), it was held that the personal liberty of an individual is the most\n precious and prised right guaranteed under the Constitution in Part III thereof. It was\n observed that the State has been granted the power to curb such rights under criminal\n laws and also under the laws of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to\n be exercised with due caution, as well as upon a proper appreciation of the facts as to\n whether such acts are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the\n State and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and order, warranting the issuance\n of such an order. It was also observed that no doubt the offences alleged to have been\n committed by the Appellant are such as to attract punishment under the Andhra\n Pradesh Prohibition Act. but such punishment would have to be awarded under the\n said laws and taking recourse to preventive detention laws would not be warranted. It\n had been emphasised that preventive detention involves detaining of a person without\n trial in order to prevent him/ her from committing certain types of offences, but such\n detention cannot be made a substitute for the ordinary law and absolve the\n investigating authorities of their normal functions of investigating crimes, which the\n detenu may have committed. It had also been observed that after all, preventive\n detention. in most cases, is for a year only and cannot be used as an instrument to keep\n a person in perpetual custody without trial."9. Thus, the Supreme Court has emphasized that preventive detention\ninvolves detaining of a person without trial in order to prevent him/ her from\ncommitting certain types of offences, but such detention cannot be made a\nsubstitute for the ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities of\ntheir normal functions of investigating crimes, which the detenue may have\ncommitted. It had also been observed that after all, preventive detention. In\nmost cases, is for a year only and cannot be used as an instrument to keep a\nperson in perpetual custody without trial.10. It appears that the state authorities tend to forget the aforementioned\nsettled proposition of law and orders are being passed being oblivious of the\nfact that the freedom of human being is supreme and the same cannot bePage 9 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023\n\n\n\n\ncurtailed or restricted unless the detention is extremely necessary and the\nactivities of the detenue affects the "public order". It is also noticed by this\nCourt that the state authorities are absolutely oblivious of the expression\nbetween the "law and order" and "public order". In numerous decisions, the\nSupreme Court and the High Court has reiterated and explained the\ndifference between the two expressions, however, from the orders of\ndetentions, it is noticed that no attention is being paid by the detaining\nauthorities on such vital aspect. While passing the detention orders, the\nauthorities have to be mindful of the characteristic ofArticle 21and22of\nthe Constitution of India.Article 22cannot be read in isolation but must be\nread as an exception toArticle 21, and such exception can apply only in rare\nand exceptional cases. The Apex Court and this Court time and again have\narticulated that the personal liberty protected underArticle 21is so\nsacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the\nobligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention is\nmeticulously accords with the procedure established by law. We have also\ncome across cases that in a single case of prohibition, the provisions of\nPASA are invoked and the order of detentions are not executed and the\nprovisions of PASA are invoked even after such detenue have been granted\nbail. Thus, it appears that, in numerous cases such orders are executed in\norder to frustrate the orders of bail11. Thus, it is high time that the State Authorities should introspect their\naction of passing detention order in a casual manner since this Court is\nconfronted with the orders of detention, which do not stand the test of\nsettled legal proposition of law.12. In view of above, we are inclined to allow this petition, because\nsimplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with thePage 10 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023C/SCA/6082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023\n\n\n\n\nbreach of maintenance of public order and the authority cannot have\nrecourse under the Act and no other relevant and cogent material exists for\ninvoking power undersection 3(1)of the Act. It is not in dispute that first\nFIR registered at Bapunagar on 12.02.2023 for the offence punishable\nunderSections 392,397,114of the IPC as well as 135(1) of the G.P.Act.\nThe parties have already compromised and the petitioner is released on bail\nby the trial Court. So far as second FIR is concerned, the petitioner is also\nreleased on bail. The dispute appears to be private in nature. In the result,\nthe present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention\ndated 21.03.2023 by the respondent - detaining authority is hereby quashed\nand set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not\nrequired in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service\nis permitted.(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)\n\n\n\n (DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)\nMANOJPage 11 of 11Downloaded on : Mon May 01 20:41:34 IST 2023 |
944abab4-99c6-5048-8545-1ee349f51b3f | court_cases | Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar BenchBilal Ahmad Dar vs Ut Of Jk And Ors on 30 June, 2022Author:Sanjeev KumarBench:Sanjeev KumarS. No. 42\n Suppl. List\n IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n AT SRINAGAR\n\n WP(C) No. 1153/2022\n CM No. 2829/2022\n\nBilal Ahmad Dar ...Petitioner(s)\n\nThrough: Mr. M.A.Wani, Advocate, with Mr. Z.A.Wani, Adv.\n\n Vs.\n\nUT of JK and Ors. ...Respondent(s)\n\nThrough: Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG.\n\nCORAM:\n HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE\n\n ORDER30.06.2022\n\n Oral:01. Petitioner is aggrieved of and has challenged the order of Chief\n\n Engineer, Jammu and Kashmir, UEED, Srinagar, issued vide his No.\n\n CE/UEED/PS/532-68 dated 24th May, 2022, whereby the "AAY"Class Contractor Card issued in favour of the petitioner under\n\n Registration No. CE/UEED/AAY/Civil/Sanitary/04/2017-18 dated\n\n 20th January, 2018, has been cancelled.02. Notice of the petition was issued on 22nd June, 2022, and in response\n\n there to, Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG, appeared before the Vacation\n\n Judge on 22nd June, 2022. He was asked to file objections or seek\n\n instructions in the matter within one week. It appears that having\n\n regard to the urgency involved in the matter, the Vacation Judge fixed\n\n the matter for consideration on 30th June, 2022. Neither objections\n\n have been filed nor Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG, has been able to obtain\n\n instructions from the respondents.03. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the\n\n material on record, I am of the view that the impugned order is not\n\n sustainable for the simple reason that the same is apparently issued in\n\n violation of the principles of natural justice, in that, the petitioner does\n\n not seem to have been provided any opportunity of being heard.\n\n Needless to say, that the cancellation of registration certificate of a\n\n contractor deprives him of his right of livelihood and, therefore,\n\n affects his vital civil rights. Such order, which has drastic civil\n\n consequences, cannot be passed without hearing a person concerned.\n\n At this stage, it would be relevant to refer toSection 5of the Jammu\n\n and Kashmir Registration of Contractors Act, 1956 ("the Act of\n\n 1956"), which, for the facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:-"Removal of name from Register. --(1) The Head of the\n Department may, for reasons to be recorded, direct the removal\n altogether or for a specified period from the register of the name of\n any registered contractor. On the issue of such an order the\n certificate of registration issued in favour of the contractor shall be\n deemed to be cancelled.(2) An appeal shall lie to the Minister-in-Charge of the Department\n against an order of the Head of the Department directing the\n removal of the name of a registered contractor from the register.Such appeal shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of\n the order.(3) The Minister-in-Charge of the Department may authorize the\n Deputy Minister-in-Charge of the Department to hear and dispose\n of all or any of such appeals."04. From reading ofSection 5, it clearly transpires that the Authority\n\n competent to issue certificate of registration to a person as contractor\n\n is also competent to direct the removal of such registered contractor\n\n from the register maintained for the purpose and consequently cancel\n\n the certificate of registration issued in favour of such contractor. This,\n\n however, is required to be done by the competent Authority for\n\n reasons to be recorded. The requirement of recording the reasons\n\n itself inheres and envisages the compliance with the principles of\n\n natural justice. In the instant case, the registration of petitioner as\n contractor has been cancelled solely on the basis of Jammu and\n\n Kashmir Anticorruption Bureau's (ACB) alert Note No. 07/2022\n\n (JSC-JSK-05-2020), by virtue of which, the ACB has recommended\n\n to the department of UEED to conduct a thorough exercise to trace\n\n all illegal "AAY" Class Contractor Cards issued by the then Chief\n\n Engineer Mohammad Ali Khan and take appropriate steps for getting\n\n their cancellation. The recommendations made by the ACB could not\n\n have been treated by the Department of Housing and Urban\n\n Development Department as well as UEED, Srinagar, as a mandamus\n\n nor could they have straightway cancelled the registration of the\n\n petitioner as contractor without giving reasons and without affording\n\n an opportunity of being heard. The failure of the respondents to\n\n provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to record\n\n reasons in support of the action has vitiated the impugned order. I am\n\n aware that any order passed underSection 5reproduced above\n\n removing the registered contractor from the register maintained for\n\n the purpose and consequently cancelling his certificate of registration\n\n is appealable under Sub Section (2) ofSection 5of the Act of 1956,\n\n yet having regard to the fact that order impugned, on the face of it, is\n\n in violation of the principles of natural justice, I would not relegate\n\n the petitioner to the alternate remedy of appeal provided under the\n\n Act of 1956. The objection raised by Mr. Satinder Singh, learned\n\n AAG, with regard to the maintainability of the petitioner due to\n\n availability of the alternate remedy is, therefore, overruled.05. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The impugned\n\n Order No. CE/UEED/PS/532-68 dated 24th May, 2022 issued by the\n\n Chief Engineer, Housing and Urban Development Department,\n Kashmir, Srinagar, (respondent no. 2) is quashed. This, however,\n\n does not mean that the competent Authority cannot proceed against\n\n the petitioner underSection 5of the Jammu and Kashmir Registration\n\n of Contractors Act, 1956 and pass appropriate orders, but before\n\n doing so, it is under an obligation to provide a fair and adequate\n\n opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The competent Authority\n\n shall do well to record reasons in support of the action, if any taken,\n\n against the petitioner.06. Disposed of along with connected CM(s) in the aforesaid terms.(SANJEEV KUMAR)\n JUDGE\nSRINAGAR\n30.06.2022\n"Shamim Dar"Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No\n Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No |
bd5439dd-e8fc-50b8-8fbf-c42ed39172c0 | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nKerala High Court\nV.Radhakrishnan vs Venugopal Pazhoor on 4 December, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n PRESENT\n THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN\n &\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR\n SATURDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/13TH AGRAHAYANA,\n 1943\n OP (RC) NO. 109 OF 2021\n EARLY DISPOSAL OF E.P.NO.708 OF 2020 IN R.C.P.NO.19 OF\n 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), CHAVAKKAD\nPETITIONER/PETITIONER IN RCP:\n\n V.RADHAKRISHNAN\n AGED 88 YEARS\n S/O LATE KUTTIKRISHNA MENON, 39/47, BALA BHAVAN,\n CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682011.\n\n BY ADVS.NIDHI SAM JOHNS\n LIJO JOSEPH\n A.KEVIN THOMAS\n\n\n\nRESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN RCP:\n\n VENUGOPAL PAZHOOR\n AGED 50 YEARS\n S/O LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, KRISHNAPADAM. HOUSE\n NO.111/209/1, PLOT NO.3, KERALA STATE HOUSING\n BOARD COLONY, JAY HIND NAGAR, GURUVAYUR-680101.\n\n\n THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION\nON 04.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE\nFOLLOWING:\n -2-\n\nOP (RC) NO. 109 OF 2021\n\n\n\n JUDGMENT\nAnil K. Narendran, J.\n\n The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 88 years,\n\nfiled R.C.P.No.19 of 2018 before the Rent Control Court\n\n(Munsiff), Chavakkad, a petition filed under Section 11(3) of\n\nthe Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965,\n\nseeking eviction of the respondent herein-tenant from the\n\npetition schedule building. The bonafide need projected in the\n\nRent Control Petition was that, after the death of his wife, the\n\nlandlord is desirous of moving back to his hometown so that\n\nhe could spend remaining days there, closer to his relatives.\n\nThough the tenant entered appearance, no counter was filed\n\nin R.C.P.No.19 of 2018. The landlord was examined as PW1\n\nand Exts.A1 to A2 were marked. By Ext.P1 order dated\n\n26.02.2020, the Rent Control Court granted an order of\n\neviction under Section 11(3) of the Act and the tenant is\n\ndirected to give vacant possession of the petition schedule\n\nbuilding to the landlord, within one month from the date of\n\nthat order. The tenant is also directed to pay cost of the\n\nproceedings to the landlord.\n -3-\n\nOP (RC) NO. 109 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n 2. Seeking execution of the order of eviction granted\n\nin R.C.P.No.19 of 2018, the landlord filed E.P.No.708 of 2020\n\nbefore the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. In the said execution\n\npetition, the tenant remained absent and he was set ex parte.\n\nThe execution petition now stands posted on 31.01.2022. The\n\ntenant filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 in R.C.P.No.19 of 2018,\n\nunder Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1960 seeking an order\n\nto condone the delay of 495 days in seeking an order to set\n\naside the ex parte order of eviction and an application under\n\nOrder IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read\n\nwith Section 23(1)(h) of the Act to set aside the ex-parte\n\norder of eviction passed in the Rent Control Petition. Those\n\napplications now stands posted to 10.12.2021 for enquiry. In\n\nthose applications the landlord entered appearance and filed\n\ncounter. In this original petition filed under Article 227 of the\n\nConstitution of India, the petitioner-landlord is seeking\n\nexpeditious disposal of E.P.No.708 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.19 of\n\n2018, which is pending before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad.\n\n 3. On 05.11.2021, when this original petition came up\n\nfor admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by\n -4-\n\nOP (RC) NO. 109 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\nspeed post to the respondent-tenant, returnable within three\n\nweeks. Registry was directed to call for a report from the Rent\n\nControl Court, Chavakkad as to the present status of\n\nI.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 in R.C.P.No.19 of 2018 and also\n\nreport from the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad, the Execution\n\nCourt, as to the present status of E.P.No.708 of 2020 in\n\nR.C.P.No.19 of 2018\n\n 4. Pursuant to that order, a report dated 30.11.2021\n\nof the learned Munsiff, Chavakkad is placed on record, which\n\nreads thus;\n\n "As per the reference cited above the Munsiff,\n Chavakkad was directed to award a report with\n respect to the status of I.A.Nos.1 of 2021 and 2 of\n 2021 in R.C.P.No.19 of 2018 and also the present\n status of E.P.No.708 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.19 of 2018.\n I.A.1 of 2021 and 2 of 2021 in R.C.P.No.19 of 2018\n are filed for condonation of delay of 495 days and to\n set aside the ex-parte order passed in above R.C.P.\n respectively. The above petitions were filed on\n 20.07.2021 and were posted to 25.10.2021 for\n return of notice to respondent. On 25.10.2021 the\n respondent entered appearance and filed counter\n statement. Thereafter the matter is posted to\n 10.12.2021 for enquiry. E.P.No.708 of 2020 was filed\n -5-\n\nOP (RC) NO. 109 OF 2021\n\n\n\n for delivery of the petition schedule building in\n R.C.P.No.19 of 2018. It was filed on 11.09.2020. On\n 30.03.2021 the judgment debtor was set ex-parte\n and the matter was posted for enquiry to\n 21.05.2021. Thereafter due to national lock down\n the matter was reposted to 21.07.2021. On\n 21.07.2021 it was again adjourned to 23.10.2021\n and thereafter to 31.01.2022. Since due to Covid\n 2019 pandemic, restricted cause list was followed in\n courts, the matter was not called in open court and\n was reposted by notification. Presently, E.P.No.708 of\n 2020 stands posted to 31.01.2022."\n 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-\n\nlandlord. Despite service of notice, none appears for the\n\nrespondent-tenant.\n\n 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord\n\nwould submit that the ex parte order of eviction granted in\n\nR.C.P.No.19 of 2018 is one dated 26.02.2020. Seeking\n\nexecution of that order of eviction, the landlord filed\n\nE.P.No.708 of 2020 before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad, on\n\n11.09.2020, which is still pending consideration. The\n\nrespondent-tenant filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 in\n\nR.C.P.No.19 of 2018 seeking an order to set aside the ex-\n -6-\n\nOP (RC) NO. 109 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\nparte order of eviction and also to condone the delay of 495\n\ndays in filing the former application. Those applications are\n\nnow pending consideration before the Rent Control Court,\n\nChavakkad.\n\n 7. Having considered the submissions made by the\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioner-landlord and perusing the\n\nreport of the learned Munsiff, we find that a time bound\n\nconsideration of the execution petition filed by the petitioner-\n\nlandlord-decree holder and also the interlocutory applications\n\nfiled by the respondent-tenant seeking an order to set aside\n\nthe ex-parte order of eviction and for condonation of delay in\n\nfiling the said application is highly essential, especially when\n\nthe landlord is a senior citizen aged 88 years.\n\n In such circumstances, this original petition is disposed\n\nof with the following directions;\n\ni) On receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the\n petitioner shall move an application before the Rent\n Control Court, Chavakkad to advance the hearing of\n I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 in R.C.P.No.19 of 2018 to a\n near date.\nii) Thereafter, the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad shall\n -7-\n\nOP (RC) NO. 109 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n consider I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 in R.C.P.No.19 of\n 2018 and pass appropriate orders thereon, as\n expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a\n period of one month.\niii) Subject to the orders to be passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2\n of 2021, the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad shall proceed\n with E.P.No.708 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.19 of 2018.\n\n\n Sd/-\n\n ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE\n\n\n Sd/-\n\n P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE\nAV/9/12\n -8-\n\nOP (RC) NO. 109 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 109/2021\n\nPETITIONER EXHIBITS\n\nExhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED\n 26.02.2020 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL\n COURT OF CHAVAKKAD IN R C P 19/2018.\n\nExhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN EP\n 708/2020 IN RCP 19/2018 FILED BEFORE\n THE RENT CONTROL COURT OF CHAVAKKAD.\n\nExhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN EP\n NO.708/2020 IN R.C.P. 19/2018 ON THE\n FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT OF\n CHAVAKKAD.\n\nExhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE CASE STATUS OF\n EP.708/2020 IN R C P 19/2018 ON THE\n FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT (RENT\n CONTROL COURT) OF CHAVAKKAD ON\n 21.05.2021.\n\nExhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE CASE STATUS OF\n EP.708/2020 IN R C P 19/2018 ON THE\n FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT (RENT\n CONTROL COURT) OF CHAVAKKAD ON\n 21.07.2021.\n\nExhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE CASE STATUS OF\n EP.708/2020 IN R C P 19/2018 ON THE\n FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT (RENT\n CONTROL COURT) OF CHAVAKKAD ON\n 23.10.2021. |
0944b1ab-caf3-588a-a974-88302f808fe5 | court_cases | National Company Law Appellate TribunalAshish Chaturvedi And Anr vs Inox Leisure Ltd And Anr on 29 January, 2021NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI\n Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 47 of 2021\n\n In the matter of:\n\nAshish Chaturvedi and Anr. ....Appellants\n Vs.\nInox Leisure Ltd. and Anr. ....Respondents\n Present:\n Appellants: Mr. Siddhartha Patra, Advocate.\n Respondents:\n\n ORDER(Through Virtual Mode)\n\n\n\n 29.01.2021: I.A. No.109 of 2021 has been filed by the Appellant for\n seeking exemption from filing of the certified copy of the impugned order and\n other orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. I.A. No. 109 of 2021 is\n disposed off with direction to Appellant to file the certified copy of the\n impugned order within one week.In view of the ground urged and keeping in view the directions given by\n the Hon'ble Apex Court in suo moto jurisdiction as also by this Appellate\n Tribunal in suo moto jurisdiction in regard to extension of period of limitation\n and coupled with the fact that the impugned order was uploaded on the\n website of the Adjudicating Authority belatedly on 21st November, 2020, delay\n of 22 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.110 of 2021 stands\n disposed of.In terms of the impugned order dated 9th November, 2020, the Appellant,\n erstwhile Director of the Corporate Debtor has been directed to deposit the\n total amount of Rs.32 lakhs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the\n date of the withdrawal which was in violation of provisions of Section 14 of the\n\n Contd/-......-2-Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short). No cogent legal\nground assailing the impugned order and justifying the retention of the amount\nwithdrawn in utter violation of the order passed under Section 14 of the 'I&B\nCode' during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceeding has been\nassigned. The ground urged that due to COVID-19 Pandemic situation,\nAppellant is unable to comply with the direction is not a legal ground to set\naside the impugned order. There is no equity in favour of the Appellant who is\nguilty of violation of provisions of Section 14 of the 'I&B Code'. Faced with this\nsituation, learned counsel for the Appellant offered to withdraw the appeal. The\nappeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat]\n Acting Chairperson\n\n\n\n [Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra]\n Member (Technical)\n\n\n\n [Dr. Alok Srivastava]\n Member (Technical)\nAR/g\n\n\n\n\n Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 47 of 2021 |
0d1aa203-00ee-546f-b899-d9d5fd9bd6b5 | court_cases | Rajasthan High CourtRam Karan Meel S/O Rewant Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 December, 2022Author:Inderjeet SinghBench:Inderjeet SinghHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17931/2022\n\n1. Ram Karan Meel S/o Rewant Ram, Aged About 34 Years,\n Resident Of- Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner Of\n Goods Carrier Registration No. Rj 07 Gd 2595.\n2. Shambhu Singh S/o Hari Singh, Resident Of- Rajputo Ka\n Bass, Mithadiyaluna, Bap Phalodi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.\n Owner Of Articulated Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gb\n 0222.\n3. Anita W/o Bansi Lal, Resident Of- Ward No. 01, Meghwalo\n Ka Bass, Saloondiya, Nokha, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner\n Of Articulated Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gb 3318.\n4. Muni Ram S/o Choka Ram, Resident Of- 410, Saharano\n Ka Mohalla, Vill- Karmisar, Dist. Bikaner, Rajasthan.\n Owner Of Goods Carrier Registration No. Rj 07 Gb 5396.\n5. Sita Ram S/o Bhallu Ram, Resident Of- Vill. Jaisinghdesar,\n Magra, Nokha, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner Of Articulated\n Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gb 9163.\n6. Tola Ram Saran S/o Dhanna Ram, Resident Of- 898-D,\n Sarano Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 2, Vill.- Karmisar, Bikaner,\n Rajasthan. Owner Of Articulated Vehicle Registration No.\n Rj 07 Gb 9325.\n7. Aziz S/o Dine Khan, Resident Of- Makan No. 54, Ward No.\n 10, Kankarala, Dist. Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner Of\n Articulated Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gc 0009.\n8. Harman Ram S/o Chunna Ram, Resident Of- Thukriyasar,\n Shri Dungargarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner Of Goods\n Carrier Registration No. Rj 07 Gc 6015.\n9. Ganpat Ram S/o Pabu Ram Dhayal, Resident Of- 248,\n Gokul Sadolai Bajju, Kolayat, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner\n Of Articulated Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gd 1109.\n10. Kushal Singh S/o Samudar Singh, Resident Of- 27, K.n.d,\n Post 14-Bd, Khajuwala, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner Of\n Articulated Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gd 5628.\n11. Bhaga Ram Meghwal S/o Phusa Ram, Resident Of- Ward\n No. 9, Parwa, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner Of Articulated\n Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gd 6047.\n12. Birbal Ram S/o Baga Ram Siyag, Resident Of- Ward No.\n\n\n (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:58:15 PM)\n (2 of 3) [CW-17931/2022]\n\n\n 11, Bajju Tejpura, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner Of\n Articulated Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gd 7123.\n13. Nirmala W/o Ganpat Ram, Resident Of- Vill. Sadoli\n Bhaloori, Kolayat, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner Of\n Articulated Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gd 9039.\n14. Bhanwar Lal S/o Hadamana Ram, Resident Of- 426,\n Kaswan Chowkkesar Desar, Jatan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.\n Owner Of Articulated Vehicle Registration No. Rj 09 Gb\n 9715.\n15. Bidada Ram S/o Gomanda Ram, Resident Of- Meghwalo\n Ka Bass, Bhavanda, Teh. Khinwsar, Nagaur, Rajasthan.\n Owner Of Dumper Registration No. Rj 50 Ga 1297.\n16. Sita Ram S/o Ram Sukh Ram, Resident Of- Vpo\n Jasinghdesar, Magra, Nokha, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner\n Of Goods Carrier Registration No. Rj 07 Ga 9697.\n17. Subhash Chandra S/o Jai Sukh Ram, Resident Of-\n Jaisingh Desar, Magra, Nokha, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Owner\n Of Dumper Registration No. Rj 50 Ga 7597.\n18. Ms Bhairon Singh Rathore And Company, Through Its\n Bhairon Singh Rathore, Resident Of- Behind Surja Ram,\n Mla House, M.p Nagar, Sarwodya Basti, Bikaner,\n Rajasthan. Owner Of Articulated Vehicle Registration No.\n Rj 14 Gj 0950.\n ----Petitioners\n Versus\n1. State Of Rajasthan, Transport Department Of Rajasthan,\n Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Secretary.\n2. Department Of Mining And Geology, Government Of\n Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Joint\n Secretary.\n3. Regional Transport Officer, Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan.\n4. Regional Transport Officer, Bikaner, District Bikaner,\n Rajasthan.\n5. Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,\n Rajasthan.\n6. District Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu,\n Rajasthan.\n7. District Transport Officer, Didwana, District Nagaur,\n Rajasthan.\n\n\n (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:58:15 PM)\n (3 of 3) [CW-17931/2022]\n\n\n 8. District Transport Officer, Sujangarh, District Churu,\n Rajasthan.\n 9. District Transport Officer, Nagaur, District Nagaur,\n Rajasthan.\n 10. District Transport Officer, Phalodi, District Jodhpur,\n Rajasthan.\n 11. District Transport Officer, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri\n Ganganagar, Rajasthan.\n\n ----RespondentsFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girraj P. Sharma\n For Respondent(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG with\n Mr. Vishnu Shankar Badaya\n\n\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH\n Order\n\n 02/12/2022\n Learned counsels for the respective parties submit that the\n\n issue involved herein is no more res integra and stands resolved\n\n by an order of this Court dated 14.03.2022 in SBCWP\n\n No.1964/2022:Zabir Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.and other connected matters. They submit that this writ petition\n\n may also be disposed of in similar terms barring the direction No.1\n\n inasmuch as the amnesty scheme is no more in force.Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by\n\n learned counsels for the respective parties and the material on\n\n record, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated\n\n 14.03.2022 passed in case ofZabir Khan(supra) which shall\n\n apply mutatis mutandis to this case also barring the direction\n\n No.1.(INDERJEET SINGH),J\n\n\n AARZOO ARORA /98(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:58:15 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) |
9377cf2f-5dea-515d-994b-077050af961a | court_cases | Delhi High Court - OrdersMs. Salonee Puri vs Ms. Sanjana Roy Choudhury & Anr on 25 November, 2021Author:Yogesh KhannaBench:Yogesh Khanna$~16\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n + CS(OS) 246/2019, I.A. No.16039/2019\n MS. SALONEE PURI ..... Plaintiff\n Through : Ms.Manpreet Kaur and Ms.Jaya\n Goyal, Advocates.\n versus\n MS. SANJANA ROY CHOUDHURY & ANR. ..... Defendants\n Through : Mr.R.K. Singh, Advocate.\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA\n ORDER% 25.11.2021\n I.A. No.12014/20211. This application is filed by defendant No.2 underSection 151CPC for\n directions to the UBI/SBI Banks to release the interest money accumulated\n in SBI and UBI Bank being interest on FDRs for medical treatment and her\n maintenance.2. This dispute is for the distribution of interest on the FDRs as have\n mentioned in the said application. Two orders have been pointed out by the\n learned counsel for the defendants No.1 & 2, one is dated 27.08.2019\n whereby the parties were not allowed to withdraw the amounts from FDRs\n account of Union Bank of India, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi and\n from the State Bank of India, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi and\n details of the FDR in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendants were\n also directed to be placed on record so that the interest from the said can be\n released from the date of expenses of defendant No.2, who admittedly needs\n care.3. Reference was also made to another order dated 30.10.2019, whereby\n it was stated there are four FDRs, jointly in the name of the plaintiff and theSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed By:VIJAYALAKSHMI DOBHALSigning Date:25.11.2021 16:21defendants and since the defendant No.2, the mother of plaintiff and\n defendant No.1, aged about 84 years is suffering from various diseases,\n needs to maintain herself and hence it was directed that monthly interest of\n four FDRs jointly in the name of plaintiff and defendant No.1 shall be given\n to defendant No.2 for her day-to-day needs as well as medical needs are to\n be taken care of.4. It is stated earlier she used to get Rs.1,47,000/- per month but now\n since the interest rates are reduced she is getting around Rs.1,20,000/- per\n month though the expenses are more, hence, it is submitted for an urgent\n medical emergency some amount needs to be kept aside so that she can\n utilise the same in such an event.5. Since the FDRs are jointly owned by plaintiff and defendants and\n since this issue is being raised since the filing of the suit, it would be\n appropriate, considering the relations between the parties, they should settle\n the matter amicably and hence, as requested, they are directed to appear\n before the Organising Secretary of The Delhi High Court Mediation and\n Conciliation Centre.6. Let parties appear before The Delhi High Court Mediation and\n Conciliation Centre on 30.11.2021 at 02:30 pm.7. A senior mediator be appointed to mediate the matter.8. List before Court on 15.12.2021.YOGESH KHANNA, J.NOVEMBER 25, 2021\n RSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed By:VIJAYALAKSHMI DOBHALSigning Date:25.11.2021 16:21 |
a6c50861-3a97-5c78-8f23-b3b2ecb62159 | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nKerala High Court\nReeja vs The Special Sale Officer on 28 January, 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n PRESENT\n THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY\n FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943\n WP(C) NO. 24034 OF 2015\nPETITIONER:\n\n REEJA\n D/O.VARGHESE, KAZHUTHAKATTIL, MANDAMANGALAM\n VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.\n BY ADV SRI.A.N.SATHISH KUMAR\n\n\nRESPONDENTS:\n\n 1 THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER\n KUTTANELLOOR SCB GROUP, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT\n REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),\n THRISSUR-680014.\n 2 PUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK\n THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/SECRETARY-680014.\n SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADERE FOR R1\n\n THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON\n28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n W.P.(C) No.24034 of 2015 2\n\n\n\n JUDGMENT\n\n This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:\n\n i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing\n Exhibits P3 & P5.\n ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order\n directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P4 and permit the ept\n to clear the overdue amount in convenient installments by waiving\n penal interest and other charges by restructuring and regularising the\n loan accounts No.20360 and C 3276 of the petitioner and her late\n mother\n iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and\n proper in the interest of justice, including costs.\n 2. The case of the petitioner is that she and her mother Mariam are\n\n members of Puthur Service Co-operative Bank, Thrissur - the 2 nd respondent.\n\n The mother of the petitioner died on 8.6.2012. Apparently, a loan was availed by\n\n petitioner and her mother and according to the petitioner, repayment was made\n\n regularly and as per Exhibit P1 liability certificate issued by the Co-operative\n\n Bank, only an amount of Rs.55,000/-is outstanding against the mother of the\n\n petitioner as on 4.2.2015. However, default was occurred in repayment due to\n\n severe financial difficulties. While so, the 2nd respondent issued Exhibit P3 notice\n\n informing that the secured assets of the petitioner will be sold in public auction\n W.P.(C) No.24034 of 2015 3\n\n\n on 12.8.2015 at Mandamangalam Village Office for realisation of an amount of\n\n Rs.1,47,925/-, with interest and expenses. The case projected by the petitioner\n\n is that petitioner is not aware of any arbitration proceedings and consequential\n\n execution proceedings referred to in Exhibit P3 notice. That apart it is contended\n\n that no notices were received by the petitioner in regard to any pending\n\n proceedings before the Arbitrator under the Co-operative Societies Act and in\n\n any execution proceedings. Anyhow, from the documents produced by the\n\n petitioner along with the writ petition it is clear that public auction notice and\n\n personal notices are issued to the petitioner. It is thus challenging the coercive\n\n action, the writ petition was filed.\n\n 3. When the matter was posted before a learned Single Judge of this\n\n Court on 7th August, 2015, the following order was passed:\n\n " ORDER\n\n\n The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out notice\n to the respondents through speed post. Post the matter soon after service is\n complete.\n\n\n 2. The petitioner in this matter disputes the quantum of amount\n outstanding in the loan account. According to the learned counsel for the\n petitioner, Ext.P2 liability certificate issued on 04.02.2015 showed an amount\n of 55,000/- as outstanding, whereas Ext.P3 sale notice shows the\n outstanding amount as Rs.1,51,377/-.\n W.P.(C) No.24034 of 2015 4\n 3. Since the issue of the quantum of the outstanding amount in the\n loan account needs to be adjudicated upon, there shall be an interim\n suspension of Ext.P3, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount,\n reflected in Ext.P2 liability certificate, within two weeks from today and the\n remaining 50% in one month thereafter. The payment, thus, being made by\n the petitioner shall not be to the prejudice to either of the parties and subject\n to the outcome of the writ petition."\n\n\n 4. It is also seen that service to the 2nd respondent is complete. Since the\n\n entire amount was directed to be deposited in the interim order dated 7 th August,\n\n 2015 and petitioner is challenging only the quantum of the amount contained in\n\n the sale notices, the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.\n\n 5. I have perused the pleadings and materials on record and heard learned\n\n Government Pleader Sri.Riyal Devassy.\n\n 6. The interim order passed by this Court is made absolute. However, if the\n\n petitioner has a case that the amount shown in the public auction notice as well\n\n as the sale notice is excessive, the petitioner is given an opportunity to approach\n\n the 2nd respondent Co-operative Bank with appropriate representation and if any\n\n such representation is filed within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of\n\n this judgment, it shall be considered by the 2 nd respondent Bank in accordance\n\n with law and attain finality, at the earliest. I make it clear that merely because\n\n the interim order was made absolute, that will not stand in the way of the 2 nd\n W.P.(C) No.24034 of 2015 5\n\n\n respondent bank taking a decision in accordance with law and in accordance with\n\n the account maintained by the 2nd respondent.\n\n The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.\n\n\n Sd/-\n SHAJI P. CHALY\nsmv JUDGE\n W.P.(C) No.24034 of 2015 6\n\n\n APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24034/2015\n\nPETITIONER'S EXHIBITS\n EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH\n CERTIFICATE OF MARIYAM DT 18/6/12.\n EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LIABILITY\n CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT\n ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DT.14/2/15.\n EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED\n 8/7/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG\n WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.\n EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION\n SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND\n RESPONDENT DATED 15/7/2015.\n EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER\n PUBLICATION ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF\n THE ELEVANT PORTION DATED 31.7.2015. |
32991f68-5d4c-50f8-9742-0a5edf266ef7 | court_cases | National Company Law Appellate TribunalAll India Chess Federation vs Competition Commission Of India & Ors on 11 July, 2023NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI\n Competition Appeal (AT) No. 74 of 2018\nIN THE MATTER OF:\nAll India Chess Federation ...Appellant\nVersus\nCCI & Ors. ...Respondents\nPresent:\nFor Appellant : Mr. Shashikant, Proxy Counsel\nFor Respondents : Mr. Akash Kundu, Advocate for R-1/CCI\n Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Ms. Kokila Kumar, Mr. Ketan\n Sarraf, Mr. Ashit Kapoor, Advocates for R- 4 & 5.\n\n ORDER11.07.2023: Today, again on call a prayer is being made by Mr.\nShashikant, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the Appellant for adjourning the appeal on\nthe ground of personal difficulty of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. The\nprayer for adjournment was opposed by Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Ld. Counsel who\nappears on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 & 5. He submitted that the appeal\npertains to the year 2018 and on number of occasions case has been\nadjourned on the prayer made by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. He has\nspecifically drawn our attention to an order dated 19.05.2022 wherein it was\nindicated that no further adjournment shall be granted. Even thereafter on\n05.08.2022, 23.09.2022, 12.12.2022 the appeal was adjourned on the request\nof Appellant Counsel. Today again a prayer for adjournment has been sought\nfor. It appears that the Appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal. The\nappeal stands dismissed due to non- prosecution.[Justice Rakesh Kumar]\n Member (Judicial)\n\n\n [Dr. Alok Srivastava]\n Member (Technical)\n\n\nsr/gc |
43e7a115-e323-5686-ba5b-f58fd421f365 | court_cases | Punjab-Haryana High CourtLovepreet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 27 January, 2021Author:Harsimran Singh SethiBench:Harsimran Singh SethiCWP No. 719 of 2021\n 1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n(126) CWP No. 719 of 2021\n Date of Decision : 27.01.2021\n\nLovepreet Singh\n ...Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\nState of Haryana and another\n ...Respondents\n\n\n (through video conferencing)\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI\n\nPresent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.\n\n Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for respondent No. 2-HPSC.\n\n ***\n\nHarsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner\n\nchallenging the result of the written examination dated 01.01.2021 declared\n\nby the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the\n\n'Commission') for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), which were\n\nadvertised by the respondent-Commission vide Advertisement No. 5 dated\n\n17.11.2015 (Annexure P-1), on the ground that the answers in the answer\n\nkey to the questions in the written examination were not correct and the\n\nobjections submitted by the petitioner to the said answer keys have been\n\nrejected summarily without any application of mind.2. The brief facts leading to filing of present writ petition are that\n\n\n\n 1 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 20212the respondent-Commission issued an Advertisement No. 5 of 2015\n\n(Annexure P-1) advertising the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and\n\nAssistant Engineer (Mechanical). 27 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil)\n\nwere advertised out of which 6 posts were reserved for the Backward Class\n\nA (BCA) candidates. The criteria for the selection for the said posts was\n\nthat there would be three objective type papers and two conventional papers\n\nof 200 marks each and viva-voce will be for 125 marks. The objective type\n\npapers were General Ability Test, Civil Engineering Paper-I and Civil\n\nEngineering Paper-II. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the\n\nadvertisement, in order to qualify for interview, a candidate has to obtain at\n\nleast 40% marks in each paper and not less than 50% marks in aggregate in\n\nall the papers which he/she will undertake.3. Petitioner appeared in the examination, which were held from\n\n03.09.2020 to 05.09.2020 and the result of the said written examination was\n\ndeclared by the respondent-Commission on 01.01.2021. Petitioner was not\n\nfound successful in the written examination and therefore, was not called\n\nfor interview.4. Petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that the\n\nanswer key uploaded by the respondent-Commission in respect of the\n\nwritten examination held on 08.09.2020, does not carry correct answers.\n\nThe grievance has been raised by the petitioner qua Question No. 45 of the\n\nCivil Engineering Paper-I, Question No. 27 of the Civil Engineering Paper-\n\nII and Question Nos. 25, 62, 97, 98 of the General Ability Test .5. As the petitioner remained unsuccessful in convincing the\n\nrespondents qua the alleged faulty answer key in respect of Question Nos.\n\n97 and 98 of the General Ability Test, the petitioner has approached this\n\n\n 2 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 20213Court with a prayer that the result of the written examination, which has\n\nbeen declared by the respondents on 01.01.2021, be scrapped/set-aside and\n\nthe same be declared afresh by correcting the answer key to the questions, in\n\nrespect of which, the petitioner has raised objections.6. After notice of motion, respondents have filed reply to the writ\n\npetition. The contention of the respondents in the reply is that the answer\n\nkey to the questions, in respect of which the petitioner had raised objections,\n\nwas correct and the respondents have defended the answer key, which was\n\nuploaded. In the reply, the respondents have submitted that keeping in view\n\nthe various objections received from the students including the petitioner,\n\nthe same were put before the Expert Committee for their consideration and\n\nkeeping in view the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the\n\nCommission had taken following decisions :-"a) Objection regarding question No. 45 of Civil\n Engineering Paper-1 has been accepted.b) Questions No. 25 and 62 of General Ability Paper have\n been found to be ambiguous and hence recommended for\n deletion by the Expert Committee.c) Objections regarding question No. 27 of Civil\n Engineering Paper-II and question No. 97 and 98 of\n General Ability Paper have not been accepted by the\n Expert Committee.Consequently, appropriate action has been taken by the\n answering respondent-Commission by accepting the\n recommendations of the subject Expert Committee.\n Accordingly, the petitioner has been given the benefit in\n respect of his objection qua question no. 45 of Civil\n Engineering Paper-1 and question Nos. 25 and 62 of General\n Ability Paper. Thus, the answering respondent-Commission\n has rightly declared the result of written examination as per\n\n\n 3 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 20214the report of the Expert Committee."7. The respondents in their reply have also clarified the answer\n\nkey qua Question Nos. 97 and 98 of General Ability Paper, to which the\n\npetitioner had raised objections.8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the\n\npetitioner does not press his petition qua the quashing of the result declared\n\nby the respondent-Commission on 1st of January, 2021 keeping in view the\n\nreply filed by the respondent-Commission.9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as two\n\nquestions have been deleted from the question paper by the respondent-\n\nCommission on the advice of the Expert Committee, 40% marks required to\n\nclear a particular paper has consequently been lowered and now petitioner's\n\nscore stands raised to 39.9% marks in the General Ability Test and the said\n\nscore should be rounded off to 40% so as to make the petitioner eligible to\n\nbe called for interview. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits\n\nthat as only five candidates against 6 posts reserved for the Backward Class\n\nA (BCA) have qualified the written examination, the marks scored by the\n\npetitioner be rounded off from 39.9% to 40% in the General Ability Test\n\nand he should also be called for interview which are now scheduled to be\n\nheld in the last week of January, 2021.10. Learned counsel for the respondents raises objection to the said\n\nargument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there is\n\nno prayer in the present petition with regard to rounding off the marks\n\nsecured by the petitioner from 39.9% to 40% so as to make him eligible to\n\nbe called for interview and even otherwise, once the minimum marks of\n\n40% have been prescribed as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the\n\n\n 4 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 20215advertisement to be secured by a candidate in order to become eligible to be\n\ncalled for interview and there is no relaxation provided under any rules or in\n\nthe terms and conditions of the advertisement, the prayer of the petitioner\n\nfor rounding off the score from 39.9% to 40% may kindly be rejected being\n\nnot maintainable.11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone\n\nthrough the record with their able assistance.12. As noticed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has not\n\npressed his prayer for setting-aside the result of the written examination\n\ndeclared on 1st of January, 2021 by the Commission for the post of\n\nAssistant Engineer (Civil), as advertised vide Advertisement No. 5 dated\n\n17.11.2015 (Annexure P-1).13. The only prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner for\n\nconsideration of this Court, is for rounding off 39.9% marks secured by the\n\npetitioner in the General Ability Test to 40% so as to make him eligible to\n\nbe called for interview. It is an admitted fact that as per the terms and\n\nconditions prescribed in the advertisement, a candidate was required to\n\nobtain 40% marks in each subject and 50% marks in aggregate so as to be\n\ntreated as qualified to be called for interview by the Commission. The\n\nscheme of examination in the advertisement clearly stipulates the said\n\ncondition without there being any relaxation permissible to the said\n\ncandidate. As of now, it is also not in dispute that petitioner, who has\n\nsecured 39.9 percent marks in the General Ability Test, is not eligible to be\n\ncalled for interview.14. As far as the prayer of the petitioner for the rounding off the\n\nmarks is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon\n\n\n 5 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 20216the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.\n\n4079 of 2004, titled asState of U.P. and another Vs. Pawan Kumar\n\nTiwari and others, 2005 (1) SCT 524, decided on 04.01.2005. Learned\n\ncounsel for the petitioner contends that where, the fraction of percentage is\n\none half or more its value has to be increased to one and if the fraction is\n\nless than half then only the same has to be taken as it is. Learned counsel\n\nfor the petitioner argues that in the present case, the percentage secured by\n\nthe petitioner in the examination is 39.9%, and the same is more than one\n\nhalf, hence needs to be increased to one and be treated as 40% instead of\n\n39.9%.Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment\n\nof a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal\n\n(Civil) No. 6168 of 2001 titled asBhudev Sharma Vs. District Judge,\n\nBulandshahr and another, 2008(1) SCC 233, decided on 31.10.2007,\n\nwherein also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has rounded off 0.6 to\n\none.15. Both the judgments, which are being relied upon by the\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, have been taken into consideration by the\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6201 of 2011 titled asOrissa Public Service Commission and another Vs. Rupashree\n\nChowdhary and another, 2011(4) SCT 49, decided on 02.08.2011.\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court of India after noticing both the judgments has held\n\nthat where a candidate is seeking increase of marks by rounding off the\n\nsame so as to treat the said candidate eligible, the rounding off is not\n\npermissible.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that inPawan Kumar\n\nTiwari's case (supra) and Bhudev Sharma's case (supra), the question\n\nwas for ascertaining the number of posts required to be filled on the basis of\n\n\n 6 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 20217percentage of reservation for a particular reserved category and thus, the\n\nrounding off was permitted, which benefit is not available when a\n\ncandidate's eligibility is to be seen, especially, where minimum required\n\nmarks for clearing a particular examination has been envisaged in the\n\nadvertisement itself.The relevant paragraphs of the judgment inOrissa\n\nPublic Service Commission's case (supra) are as under :-"7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents\n during the course of his arguments relied upon the decisions of\n this Court inState of Orissa and Another v. Damodar Nayakreported in (1997) 4 SCC 560, State of U.P. and Another v.\n Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Othersreported in (2005) 2 SCC 10,\n Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumarreported in (2007) 8 SCC\n 100 and Bhudev Sharma v.District Judge, Bulandshahr and\n Another reported in (2008) 1 SCC 233. On scrutiny, we find\n that the findings recorded in the above referred cases are not\n applicable to the facts of the present case. Facts and findings\n recorded by this Court in the above referred cases are\n distinguishable to facts of the case in hand. Almost all the\n aforesaid cases dealt with post or vacancies where it was\n allowed to be rounded off to make one whole post.Understandably there cannot be a fraction of a post.8. In the light of the detailed records placed before us we\n have considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel\n appearing for the parties. The appointment to the post of Civil\n Judge (J.D.) under the Orissa Judicial Services is guided by\n Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service\n Rules, 2007 and Rule 24 thereof specifically deal with the\n criteria for determining of candidates for interview. Rule 24\n reads thus: -"24. Determination of number of candidates for\n interview -The Commission shall call the candidates for\n interview who have secured not less than forty-five per\n\n\n 7 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 20218centum of marks in aggregate and a minimum of thirty\n three per centum of marks in each paper in the Main\n written examination."9. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules would make it\n crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination\n a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of\n the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in\n all the written papers in the Main examination. When emphasis\n is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained\n making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be\n obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a\n question of relaxation or rounding off.10. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules\n permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as\n to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our\n considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was\n permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution\n or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by\n adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the\n benefit of rounding off or relaxation.11. We may also draw support in this connection from a\n decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman,\n Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society,\n Vizianagaram and Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi\n reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655. Inthe said judgmentthis Court\n has laid down that when an advertisement mentions a\n particular qualification and an appointment is made in\n disregard of the same then it is not a matter only between the\n appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The\n aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better\n qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had\n not applied for the post because they did not possess the\n qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.12. The entire record of the main written examination\n\n\n 8 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 20219was also produced before us which indicates that there are\n also candidates who have got more than the respondent in the\n aggregate but has not been able to get 33% marks in each\n paper and have missed it only by a whisker. In case, the\n contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent is\n accepted then those candidates who could not get 33% marks\n in each paper in the Main written examination could and\n should have also been called for viva-voce examination, which\n would amount to a very strange and complicate d situation and\n also would lead to the violation of the sanctity of statutory\n provision.13. When the words of a statute are clear, plain or\n unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one\n meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning\n irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself.\n There is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to\n two conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the\n respondent which would be different to what was intended by\n the Statute. Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks\n is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of\n Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration.14. The High Court, in our considered opinion, has also\n committed an error apparent on the face of the records by\n allowing two more persons, who secured marks between 44.5%\n and 45%, to be called for interview who were not even parties\n before it and who had not even shown interest subsequently to\n be appointed subsequent to the declaration of the results of the\n examination but despite the said fact the High Court directed\n them also to be called for the interview only on the ground that\n they have secured more than 44.5% of marks but less than 45%\n marks in the main written examination in aggregate."16. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of\n\nIndia while deciding Civil Appeal No. 6205 of 2011 titled asBhanu Pratap\n\n\n\n 9 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202110Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2011(4) SCT 67, decided on 02.08.2011.\n\nIn the said case, the candidate had secured 49.8% marks against 50%\n\nminimum required to become eligible for selection as subordinate Judge\n\nunder the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) examination. Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court of India held that once, there is no power provided in the\n\nstatute and there is no stipulation in the advertisement for grant of grace\n\nmarks or rounding off the marks so as to bring up the candidate to the\n\nminimum requirement, no such rounding off or relaxation is permissible.\n\nThe relevant paragraphs ofthe said judgmentare as under :-"12. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted\n before us that since the appellant had received 49.8% in\n aggregate in all the tests including viva-voce, the same could\n and should have been rounded off to 50% in aggregate which\n would have entitled the appellant to be selected for\n appointment to the aforesaid post. Counsel also submitted that\n during the earlier selection immediately preceding the\n selection in question there was the requirement of grading\n under three factors/categories only and the same came to be\n varied/increased in the selection in question from three to six.\n He contended that this increasing of grading factors/categories\n from three to six envisages much wider criteria in the selection\n process in question which amounted to arbitrariness.13. The aforesaid submissions of the counsel\n appearing for the appellant were however refuted by counsel\n appearing for the respondents by submitting that the\n respondents have strictly and minutely followed and complied\n with the Rules which are statutory in nature and, therefore, the\n present appeal has no merit at all. He also submitted that there\n cannot be addition of any marks unless the same is specifically\n permitted and provided either under the Rules or in the\n advertisement and, therefore, there was no illegality or10 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202111arbitrariness in the selection in question.14. In the light of the records place d before us we\n have considered the aforesaid sub missions of the counsel\n appearing for the parties. The relevant Rules have already\n been extracted above. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules\n would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the\n written examination a candidate has to obtain at least 33%\n marks in each of the papers and at least 50% qualifying marks\n in the aggregate in all the written papers. The further mandate\n of the rules is that a candidate would not be considered as\n qualified in the examination unless he obtains at least 50%\n marks in the aggregate including viva-voce test. When\n emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to\n be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum\n marks have to be obtained by the concerned candidate there\n cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off as sought to\n be submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant.15. There is no power provided in the statute nor any\n such stipulation was made in the advertisement and also in the\n statutory Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving\n grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum\n requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off\n or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in\n nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is\n permissible or possible by adding some words to the said\n statutory rules for providing or giving the benefit of rounding\n off or relaxation.16. We may also draw support in this connection from\n a decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman,\n Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society,\n Vizianagaram and Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi\n reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655. Inthe said judgmentthis Court\n has laid down that when an advertisement mentions a\n particular qualification and an appointment is made in\n\n\n 11 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202112disregard of the same then it is not a matter only between the\n appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The\n aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better\n qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had\n not applied for the post because they did not possess the\n qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.17.In the case ofUmrao Singh Vs. Punjabi\n University, Patiala and Ors.reported in (2005) 13 SCC 365\n this Court while dealing with the power of Selection Committee\n for relaxation of norms held thus: -"Another aspect which this Court has highlighted\n is scope for relaxation of norms. Although Court must\n look with respect upon the performance of duties by\n experts in the respective fields, it cannot abdicate its\n functions of ushering in a society based on rule of law.\n Once it is most satisfactorily established that the\n Selection Committee did not have the power to relax\n essential qualification, the entire process of selection so\n far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated.InP.K. Ramchandra Iyer and Ors. v. Union of India and\n Ors.(1984) ILLJ314SC this Court held that once it is\n established that there is no power to relax essential\n qualification, the entire process of selection of the\n candidate was in contravention of the established norms\n prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be\n clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised."18. Let us also examine the issue from another angle.\n If rounding off is given to the appellant as sought for by him\n there has to be similar rounding off for a person who has\n missed 33% in one of the papers just by a whisker. To him and\n to such a person who could not get 50% in aggregate in the\n written test, if this rule of rounding off is offered then they\n would also get qualified. In that event, there would be no\n meaning of having a rule wherein it is provided that a person\n\n\n 12 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202113must at least have the minimum marks as provided for\n thereunder. Somewhere a line has to be drawn and that line\n has to be strictly observed which is like a Lakshman Rekh a\n and no variation of the same is possible unless it is so\n provided under the Rules itself. Both the Selection Committee\n as also the appointing authority are bound to act within the\n parameters of the Rules which are statutory in nature and any\n violation or any relaxation\n thereof whether by way of giving grace marks or rounding off\n would be acting beyond the parameters prescribed which\n would be illegal."17. Same question of rounding off the marks so as to gain the\n\neligibility again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme\n\nCourt of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 764 of 2017 titled asTaniya\n\nMalik Vs. The Registrar General of the HighCourt of Delhi, decided on\n\n16.02.2018. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India again held that once an\n\neligibility criteria has been prescribed for a particular examination, a person\n\nneeds to meet the said criteria without any relaxation and enhancement of\n\nmarks by rounding off method so as to make up the minimum aggregate is\n\nnot permissible. The relevant paragraphs ofthe said judgmentare as under :"20. With regard to question as to rounding off of the\n marks, in our opinion, when a particular aggregate is\n prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria\n without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks\n by rounding off method to make up the minimum aggregate.21. This Court, inThe Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi\n University of Health Sciences, Bangalore v. G. Hemlatha and\n Ors., 2012(4) S.C.T. 157 : (2012) 8 SCC 568, held as\n impermissible the rounding off of eligibility criteria in relation\n to qualifying examination for admission to the PG Course in\n Msc (Nursing).Relying upon the decision rendered inOrissa\n\n\n 13 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202114Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdhary\n and Anr., 2011(4) S.C.T. 49 : (2011) 8 SCC 108, this Court\n observed:"8.InOrissa Public Service Commission and\n Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr.2011(4) S.C.T.\n 49 : (2011) 8 SCC 108 this Court in somewhat similar\n fact situation considered whether the eligibility criteria\n could be relaxed by the method of rounding-off. The\n Orissa Public Service Commission published an\n advertisement inviting applications from suitable\n candidates for the Orissa Judicial Service Examination,\n 2009 for direct recruitment to fill-up 77 posts of Civil\n Judges (JD). Pursuant to the advertisement, the first\n Respondent therein applied for the said post. She took\n the preliminary written examination. She was successful\n in the said examination. She, then, took the main written\n examination. The list of successful candidates, who were\n eligible for interview, was published in which the first\n Respondent's name was not there. She received the mark\n sheet. She realized that she had secured 337 marks out of\n 750 i.e. 44.93% of marks in the aggregate and more than\n 33% of marks in each subject.9. As per Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial\n Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for\n short "the Orissa Rules"), the candidates who have\n secured not less than 45% of the marks in the aggregate\n and not less than a minimum of 33% of marks in each\n paper in the written examination should be called for\n viva voce test. Since the first Respondent therein had\n secured 44.93% marks in aggregate she was not called\n for interview/viva voce. The first Respondent approached\n the Orissa High Court. The High Court allowed the writ\n petition. The appeal from the said order was carried to\n this Court.14 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 20211510. After considering the Orissa Rules, this Court\n inRupashree Chowdharycase (2011) 8 SCC 108 held\n that Rule 24 thereof made it clear that "in order to\n qualify in the written examination a candidate has to\n obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers\n and not less than 45% marks in the aggregate in all the\n written papers in the main examination." (SCC p. 111,\n para 10)\n This Court observed that when emphasis is given\n in the rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained,\n there can be no relaxation or rounding-off. It was\n observed that no power was provided in the statute/rules\n permitting any such rounding-off or giving grace marks.\n It was clarified that: (SCC p. 112, para 10)\n "10.... The [Orissa] Rules are statutory in nature\n and no dilution or amendment to such rules is\n permissible or possible by adding some words to the said\n statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding-off or\n relaxation."11. In our opinion, the ratio of this judgment is\n clearly applicable to the facts of this case. Judgment of\n the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court inVani Pati\n Tripathi v. Director General, Medical Education and\n Training and Ors.2003(3) S.C.T. 492 : AIR 2003 All\n 164 and judgment of the Full Bench of Punjab and\n Haryana High Court inKuldip Singh, Legal Assistant,\n Punjab Financial Corporation v. The State of Punjab\n and Ors., 1998(1) S.C.T. 339 : (1997) 117 PLR 1, were\n cited before us because they take the same view.However, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of\n this Court inOrissa Public Service Commission(supra),\n it is not necessary for us to discuss the said decisions.12. No provision of any statute or any rules\n framed thereunder has been shown to us, which permits\n\n\n 15 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202116rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the\n qualifying examination for admission to the PG course\n in M.SC (Nursing). When eligibility criteria is prescribed\n in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered\n to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice\n on other candidates. The Division Bench of the High\n Court erred in holding that learned Single Judge was\n right in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make\n Respondent 1 eligible for admission to PG course. Such\n rounding-off is impermissible."22. Thus the principle of rounding off method could not\n be applied in view of requirement to obtain minimum\n aggregate marks to be called for interview in the instant case."18. The judgment inPawan Kumar Tiwari's case (supra), which is\n\nbeing relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been\n\nconsidered and distinguished by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while\n\ndeciding CWP No. 15973 of 2014 titled as Bavil Sidhu Vs. State of\n\nPunjab and another, on 02.09.2014. In the said writ petition, petitioner\n\ntherein, lost out on his eligibility by 0.28% marks which fell below the\n\nminimum 40% marks required and petitioner therein approached this Court\n\nfor the rounding off the percentage to 40% so as to make him eligible.The\n\nCo-ordinate Bench of this Court held thatPawan Kumar Tiwari's case\n\n(supra), which related to the ascertaining of the number of posts required to\n\nbe filled on the basis of the percentage provided for reservation of a\n\nparticular category, where rounding off is permissible, has no applicability,\n\nwhere eligibility of a candidate is to be determined in respect of minimum\n\npercentage of marks required. The relevant paragraph ofthe said judgmentis as under :-"The petitioner, who lost out on his eligibility by 0.28%\n\n\n 16 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202117marks that fell below 40%, has a grievance that if the\n percentage of marks was rounded off to the nearest whole\n number, he would have been treated as eligible and that is how\n his case must have been considered for determining his\n eligibility for admission to MBBS course. Learned Senior\n Counsel would rely on a Division Bench ruling of the Bombay\n High Court in Anup Prakash Vyas Versus University of Pune\n 2013 (2) AIR Bombay, 695 that held, while considering the\n eligibility of a candidate for admission to Bachelor of\n Architecture course, that when the eligibility was 50% and a\n candidate had obtained 49.846% in aggregate, the fraction\n must be ignored and it could be rounded off to the nearest\n whole number. Learned Senior counsel would refer to the fact\n that the Bombay High Court was relying on a three member\n Bench judgment of the Supreme Court inState of U.P. And\n another Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others(2005 ) 2 SCC\n 10, where the Supreme Court was considering a case of\n application of prescribed percentage apportionment to general\n and reserved categories for appointment and while noticing the\n treatment of a fraction of vacancies, the court held that if the\n fraction was 1/2 or more it should be treated as 1 and if it is\n less than 1/2, it should be ignored.With respect, I hold that the\n reliance on the three members Bench judgment of the Supreme\n Court inPawan Kumar Tiwari's (supra) simply does not\n answer the issue, for, the total number of vacancies can never\n be in terms of a fraction, for, no person other than a whole\n individual could be appointed. In the very nature of things, a\n fraction of vacancy to the post has no meaning. Fraction in\n marks perfectly is tenable and possible at all times. Importing\n the principle of rounding off vacancy to appointment to an\n institute to round off marks was clearly wrong in my view, and\n I am unable to persuade myself to accept the ruling of the\n Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in that regard."19. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner\n\n\n 17 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202118submits that the judgments, which are being relied upon to oust the claim of\n\nthe petitioner, cannot be made applicable as the judgment inPawan Kumar\n\nTiwari's case (supra) is a Division Bench Judgment consisting of three\n\nHon'ble Judges, whereas the other judgments are rendered by Division\n\nBench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India consisting of two Hon'ble Judges\n\nand hence, the judgment rendered by a Bench consisting of three Hon'ble\n\nJudges will prevail over a judgment given by a Bench consisting of two\n\nHon'ble Judges.20. The said question also came up for consideration before the\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ petition (Criminal) 972 of 1984,\n\ntitled asJaved Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala Vs. State of Maharashtra,\n\ndecided on 09.11.1984. Though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not\n\ndivulge much on the said aspect but has expressed certain views with regard\n\nto a Division Bench consisting of two Hon'ble Judges and a Division Bench\n\nconsisting of three Hon'ble Judges. The question before the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court of India was whether a Division Bench consisting of three\n\nHon'ble Judges can overrule a judgment of the Division Bench consisting of\n\ntwo Hon'ble Judges merely because three is larger than two. The Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court of India held that the Supreme Courts sits in divisions of\n\ntwo and three judges for the sake of convenience and it may be\n\ninappropriate for a Division Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges to\n\npurport to overrule the decision of a Division Bench judgment consisting of\n\ntwo Hon'ble Judges. Relevant paragraph ofthe said judgmentis as\n\nunder :-"4. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx\n The case also raises the further question whether a\n\n\n 18 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202119Division Bench of three judges can purport to overrule the\n judgment of a Division Bench of two judges merely because\n three is larger than two. The Court sits in Divisions of two and\n three judges for the sake of convenience and it may be in\n appropriate for a Division Bench of three judges to purport to\n overrule the decision of a Division Bench of two judges. Vide\n Young V. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944(2) All England\n Reporter 293. It may be otherwise where a Full Bench or a\n Constitution Bench does so. We do not however desire to\n embark upon this question in this case. In the present case we\n are satisfied that an overall view of all the circumstances\n appears to us to entitle the petitioner to invoke the protection\n ofArticle 21of the Constitution. We accordingly quash the\n sentence of death and substitute in its place the sentence of\n imprisonment for life.Order accordingly."21. Even otherwise question whether, a later decision of a smaller\n\nbench, which analysed and explained the earlier larger bench judgment, will\n\nbe binding or not came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this\n\nCourt in CWP No. 3923 of 1986, titled asSubhash Chander Kamlesh\n\nKumar Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 09.03.1990, wherein it\n\nwas held that where a smaller bench has taken into consideration the earlier\n\nlarger bench judgment and has analysed the same and explained/\n\ndistinguished the same, then the later judgment, which though is rendered\n\nby a smaller bench judgment, will be binding. The relevant paragraph ofthe\n\nsaid judgmentis as under :-"19. Shri Sibal contended that the decision inK.K.\n Puri's case (supra) was binding on this Court in preference to\n the later smaller Bench decisions.For this contention, he\n relied onThe State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, AIR\n 1976 Supreme Court 2547. In paragraph 22 it was laid down\n\n 19 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202120as under :-"Where a High Court finds any conflict between\n the views expressed by larger and smaller benches of\n this Court; it cannot disregard or skirt the views\n expressed by the larger benches. The proper course for a\n High Court in such a case, as observed by this Court inUnion of India v. K.S. Subramanian Civil Appeal No.212 of 1975 decided on July 30, 1976) to which one of\n us was a party, is to try to find out and follow the\n opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in\n preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the\n Court which practice hardened, as it has, into a rule of\n law is followed by this Court itself".Reference is also made toGanapati Sitaram Balvalkar\n and another v. Waman Shripad MageAIR 1981 Supreme\n Court 1956, andState of Orissa and others v. Titaghur Paper\n Mills Company Limited and another, 1985 (Supp.) SCC 280.\n It will be seen that none of the cases relied upon by the learned\n counsel for the petitioners dealt with a case where the latter\n Benches may have analysed and explained the earlier judgment\n of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The abstract\n proposition that where there is a conflict between the law\n declared by a larger Bench and a smaller Bench, the former\n will prevail, does not help in resolving the present problem. In\n the present case, the smaller Benches analysed and explained\n the earlier Judgment of the Constitution Bench.This very\n question was explained by a Full Bench of our Court inMs.\n Daulat Ram Trilok Nath and others v. The State of Punjab\n and others, AIR 1976 Punjab and Haryana 304. It was held\n that construction which the Supreme Court itself places on an\n earlier precedent is obviously binding and authoritative.To the\n same effect is another decision of a Full Bench of this Court in\n theState of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 Crl. LJ 1648. It was\n observed :20 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202121".......When an earlier judgment of the Supreme\n Court is analysed and considered by a later Bench of\n that Court then the view taken by the latter as to the true\n ratio of the earlier case is authoritative in any case, that\n view is binding on the High Courts".A Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court inNizamuddin\n Suleman v. The New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Mills Co. Ltd.,\n Nadiad and another1979 Gujarat Law Reporter 290 after SC\n 2433, concluded the legal position in the following words :-"Of course, if the view expressed earlier by a\n larger bench of the Supreme Court have been explained\n even by a smaller Bench in a subsequent decision, the\n explanation by a smaller bench of the Supreme Court\n would be required to be followed by High Courts before\n whom the earlier decision of the larger bench and the\n subsequent explanation of the same judgment by the\n smaller bench are cited. Otherwise, as indicated by Beg,\n J., inUnion of India v. K.S. Subramanian(supra) the\n High Court is bound to follow the decision of the larger\n Bench of the Supreme Court".Having considered the matter carefully, we are of the\n view that the later decisions, even though by smaller Benches,\n have analysed and explained the observations of the\n Constitutions Bench inK.K. Puri's case (supra) and the law as\n explained in those later decision is binding on us."22.In the present case, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme\n\nCourt of India consisting of three Hon'ble Judges inPawan Kumar\n\nTiwari's case (supra), has already been taken into consideration and\n\nexplained by a Division Bench consisting of two Judges of the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court of India inRupashree Chowdhary's case (supra). That\n\nbeing so, the later Division Bench judgment though, rendered by a Division\n\nBench consisting of two Hon'ble Judges, has a binding precedence and\n\n\n 21 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 :::CWP No. 719 of 202122cannot be ignored, as being prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.23. Keeping in view the settled principles of law noticed here-in-\n\nbefore, the prayer of the petitioner for rounding off his percentage from\n\n39.9% to 40% in respect of his General Ability Test is not permissible and\n\nthe said prayer is contrary to the settled principles of law and hence, the\n\nsame is rejected.24. Keeping in view the above, the prayers of petitioner are devoid\n\nof merits and the same are consequently rejected.25. Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.January 27, 2021 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)\nkanchan JUDGE\n\n\n Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No\n Whether reportable : Yes/No\n\n\n\n\n 22 of 22::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 09:18:42 ::: |
cf1dccac-07d0-510e-aeea-3df2b67d1d2e | court_cases | Madras High CourtMurugesan vs Ramdas on 29 July, 2021Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MAD 1753Author:A.D.Jagadish ChandiraBench:A.D.Jagadish Chandira1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n DATE: 29.7.2021.\n\n CORAM\n\n THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA\n\n C.R.P. (PD) No.1393 of 2017\n and\n C.M.P.No.6441 of 2017\n\n 1. Murugesan\n 2. Jeeva\n 3. Arunachalam\n 4. Chandra Mohan\n 5. Muthukumar Petitioners\n\n vs.\n\n 1. Ramdas\n 2. Samaya Sundaram\n 3. Rajmohan\n\n 4. Commissioner,\n Tiruvarur Municipality,\n Thiruvarur Demu,\n Illakka and Thiruvarur Town and Taluk,\n Tiruvarur District.\n\n 5. Tahsildar,\n Tiruvarur, Thiruvarur Demu,\n Illakka and Thiruvarur Taluk and Town,\n Tiruvarur District.\n\n 6. District Collector,\n Tiruvarur District,\n Thiruvarur Demu,\n Illakka and Thiruvarur Taluk,\n Vilamal Village. Respondents\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n 2\n\n Civil Revision Petition filed underArticle 227of the Constitution\n of India against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 20.1.2017 passed\n in I.A.No.410 of 2013 in O.S.No.165 of 2013 on the file of the District\n Munsif, Tiruvarur.\n\n For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sadasivan\n\n For R3 : Mr.N.Manokaran\n\n\n ORDERThe revision has been filed against the order and decree passed\n\n by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur dated 20.1.2017 in I.A.No. 410 of\n\n 2013 in O.S.No.165 of 2013 dismissing the petition filed underOrder I\n\n Rule 8 CPC.2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit.3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit on behalf of themselves and\n\n the Mirasudars and village representatives of Pullatheru Village. The\n\n suit 'A' schedule properties in the Sundaravilagam revenue village are\n\n administered by the village Mirasudars and the villagers of Pullatheru\n\n Village for the expenses of the Arulmighu Pidari Mayiliamman temple.\n\n The suit 'B' schedule properties belong to the village community and\n\n 'C' schedule properties are the water bodies in the village. The fishing\n\n rights of 'C' schedule properties have been with the villagers and the\n\n income derived therefrom was used for the public purposes and the\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/3welfare of the village. Since the above properties were not properly\n\n maintained by the earlier Administrator Manicka Vanniar, the\n\n Mirasudars and villagers of Pullatheru village had earlier filed a suit in\n\n O.S.No.301 of 1975 for production of accounts and mesne profits.\n\n The said suit was decreed in favor of the Mirasudars and villagers on\n\n 30.6.1977 and against that judgment decree, the said Manicka Vanniar\n\n filed first appeal in A.S.No.171 of 1977 which was dismissed on\n\n 3.3.1978. Against the dismissal of the first appeal, the said Manicka\n\n Vanniar filed second appeal in S.A.No.1742 of 1979 and the second\n\n appeal was also dismissed by this court on 26.10.1979. Thereafter,\n\n an Execution Petition was filed and the properties belonging to the\n\n villagers were recovered and handed over to the villagers. 'A'\n\n schedule properties were administered and maintained by the\n\n Mirasudars and villagers by the elected Committees and the income\n\n derived from the properties were used for the expenses of the temple\n\n and the income derived from the 'B' schedule and 'C' schedule\n\n properties were used for the public purposes of the village.4. Whileso, the defendants fraudulently sold the suit properties\n\n belonging to the village by registered documents dated 18.8.2004,\n\n 2.2.2011 and 31.12.2008. Thereby, the plaintiffs having a community\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/4interest, filed the suit in O.S.No. 165 of 2013 to declare the sale deeds\n\n as void.5. The petitioners have also filed I.A.No.410 of 2013 in\n\n O.S.No.165 of 2013 underOrder I Rule 8 CPCseeking permission to\n\n sue on behalf of the villagers having similar interest.6. The Trial Court, by order dated 2.12.2013 allowed the petition\n\n and passed the following order:-"The petition is allowed in the interest of justice, however\n\n the petitioner is directed to give notice to the concerned\n\n persons under Order I Rule 8(2)CPC."7. Subsequently, on 13.12.2013, the court directed the\n\n petitioners to give notice to the persons, who are being represented by\n\n him in accordance with Order I Rule 8(2)CPCby 2.1.2014. The\n\n petitioners, in due compliance of the order, effected public notice by\n\n paper publication. The petitioners, in order to prove that they have a\n\n community interest, had filed a copy of the judgment in O.S.No.301 of\n\n 1975 dated 30.6.1977 and they also filed a copy of the suit register\n\n dated 6.11.2013 to prove that earlier a petition had been filed in\n\n respect of the very same properties on behalf of Pullatheru Mirasudars.\n\n When the matter was listed on 2.1.2014, a vakalat was filed by a\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/5counsel by name Mr.T.P.S.Manickam for objectors 1 to 60 and another\n\n vakalat was filed by another counsel for the objectors 61 to 91 and\n\n the matter was adjourned to 30.1.2014 for filing of objections and\n\n counters by the respondents, however, on 30.1.2014, at the request\n\n of the counsel for the respondents, the matter was again adjourned to\n\n 28.2.2014 and again to 24.3.2014 and thereafter on 10.6.2014, the\n\n first respondent had filed a written statement and thereafter the\n\n matter was listed on several dates and the matter was posted for\n\n inquiry and finally on 20.1.2017, the Trial Judge had dismissed the\n\n petition filed underOrder I Rule 8 CPCagainst which the revision has\n\n been filed.8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would\n\n submit that the Trial Court allowed the petition on 2.12.2013 and\n\n permitted the petitioners to take notice by way of paper publication.\n\n Pursuant to the same, the petitioners, in due compliance, have\n\n effected notice by paper publication. Thereafter, counsels entered\n\n appearance on behalf of the Objectors. After the respondents have\n\n appeared and putforth their objections with reference to the claim of\n\n the petitioner to sue in the representative capacity, the court below, if\n\n the objectors are deemed to be necessary parties, ought to have\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/6permitted them to be made as parties to the suit and allowed them to\n\n putforth their respective cases and on the basis of the pleas putforth\n\n by the parties concerned, should have framed necessary issues with\n\n reference to the said case on merits and one of the issues would also\n\n include the entitlement of the plaintiffs to sue against the defendants\n\n in representative capacity on behalf of the community and thereafter\n\n the Trial Court should have disposed the suit as per law. On the other\n\n hand, the court, having earlier allowed the petition by order dated\n\n 2.12.2013, without following the mandatory procedures contemplated\n\n underOrder I Rule 8 CPCand without understanding the scope and\n\n principles outlined underOrder I Rule 8 CPC, had strangely, by order\n\n dated 20.1.2017, dismissed the petition, which was earlier allowed on\n\n 2.12.2013, He further submitted that this Hon'ble court in the\n\n judgment in Sailappan v. Subramanian (2019-2-LW 885), by following\n\n an earlier Division Bench judgment of this court in Sankiah and others\n\n v. Vadakasi and others reported in 1980 TLNJ 86, had elaborately set\n\n out the scope and principles of law underOrder I Rule 8 CPC. He\n\n would further submit that in this case, the petitioners, as stated above,\n\n have produced a copy of the judgment and decree in an earlier suit\n\n filed by the Mirasudars of the village in respect of the very same\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/7property alongwith the plaint as document Nos.1 and 2 whereas the\n\n Trial Court, without proper application of mind and without following\n\n the procedures contemplated underOrder I Rule 8 CPC, wrongly\n\n observing that the petitioners had not filed any documents and not let\n\n in evidence to prove their community interest, had dismissed the\n\n petition. He would further submit that the suit schedule properties\n\n are the community properties belonging to the village and the plaintiffs\n\n as Mirasudars and representatives of the village have got a right to\n\n protect the interest of the community. He would, therefore, pray that\n\n the civil revision petition may be allowed and the order passed by the\n\n Trial Court may be set aside.9. Per contra Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the\n\n third respondent would submit that the respondents have filed a\n\n detailed written statement. He would further submit that the\n\n Naattamais and Panchayatdars of the village, who were administering\n\n the Arulmighu Pidari Mayiliamman temple, by Resolution dated\n\n 29.12.2002, formed an Association and by that Resolution, handed\n\n over the administration of the village and the temple to the first\n\n defendant and a Resolution was also passed electing other office\n\n bearers and only on the Resolution passed by the villagers, certain\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/8deeds were done by the defendants for the welfare of the village and\n\n the temple whereas the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, who were\n\n antagonized, have filed the Application to defeat the rights of the\n\n villagers. He would further submit that no proper notice has been\n\n given by the plaintiffs and the notice does not disclose the nature of\n\n the suit and it also does not disclose the schedule of properties and\n\n the trial court rightly finding that the petitioners have not made out a\n\n case for permission underOrder I Rule 8 CPC, had rightly dismissed\n\n the same.10. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners\n\n would submit that the Trial Court, having earlier allowed the\n\n Application and granted permission to effect notice by paper\n\n publication, can only frame issues in respect of the plea of the\n\n plaintiffs underOrder I Rule 8 CPCand the issue can be determined in\n\n accordance with law taking into consideration the merits of the case at\n\n the time of trial and the permission, which was already granted cannot\n\n be set aside by a subsequent order.11. Heard the the learned counsel appearing for the parties and\n\n perused the materials available on record.12. A perusal of the records shows that the plaint has been filed\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/9on 28.11.2013. Along with the plaintiff, petition in I.A.No. 410 of 2013\n\n had been filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs seeking permission\n\n to file the suit in a representative capacity underOrder I Rule 8 CPC.\n\n The Trial Court, by order dated 2.12.2013, had allowed the petition\n\n and directed the petitioners to take notice, based on which, paper\n\n publication has been affected and the objectors had also filed the\n\n objections.13. In a similar situation, relying upon the decision in Sankiah\n\n and others vs. Vadakasi and others (1980 TLNJ 86) wherein the\n\n principles of law have been outlined underOrder I Rule 8 CPCand\n\n various other decisions, this court has held in Sailappan v.\n\n Subramanian (2019-2-LW 885) as under:-" 11. In this connection, for a better understanding\n\n of the scope and the principles of law outlined underOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C., it is apt to refer the decision of\n\n this Court in Sankiah and others vs. Vadakasi and\n\n others, reported in 1980 TLNJ 86, wherein the Division\n\n Bench had elaborately set out the scope and the\n\n principles of law adumbrated underOrder I Rule 8\n\n C.P.C., as follows:https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/10"Order 1 Rule 8 is an exception to the general\n\n rule that all persons interested in a suit should\n\n be joined as parties to it so that the matters\n\n involved may be finally adjudicated upon and\n\n multiplicity of litigation in respect of the same\n\n matter may be avoided. The rule which is\n\n based upon reason and good policy provides\n\n where a number of persons have the same\n\n interest in the subject matter or the suit, one\n\n or more of them can, with the permission of\n\n the Court, sue or be sued on behalf of\n\n themselves and the others. The conditions that\n\n are to be satisfied for applicability of the rules\n\n are: (1) The parties must be numerous. But\n\n the rule does not fix any limit to number. The\n\n word numerous is not a term of art; nor is it\n\n synonymous with the word numberless or\n\n innumerable. It only means a group of persons\n\n such as would make it inconvenient for the\n\n plaintiffs to implead all of them either as\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/11plaintiffs or defendants individually. (2) The\n\n parties must have the same interest in the\n\n suit. The interest must be common between\n\n them all or they must have a common\n\n grievance which they seek to redress. In other\n\n words in a representative action it is essential\n\n that the class of persons on behalf of whom or\n\n against whom relief is sought should be clearly\n\n defined. (3) The Court's permission under the\n\n rule must be obtained. The Court should\n\n exercise its judicial discretion in granting\n\n permission to a person to sue in a\n\n representative capacity under the rule. The\n\n Court should be satisfied that there is\n\n community of interest as between the plaintiffs\n\n or the defendants, as the case may be, to\n\n justify the adoption of the procedure provided\n\n under the rule. However, it is not necessary\n\n that a formal order should be passed by the\n\n Court. From the circumstances of the case and\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/12from the fact that the Court had ordered\n\n publication of the notice it can be presumed\n\n that the Court had granted the necessary\n\n permission under Order 1 Rule 8. (4) Notice\n\n must be given to the parties to whom it is\n\n proposed to represent in the suit. Issue of a\n\n notice either privately or by publication on the\n\n persons concerned is an indispensable\n\n preliminary to the trial of the suit under Order\n\n 1 Rule 8. It is necessary that the plaintiff\n\n should give the names of persons whose\n\n addresses are ascertainable. If personal\n\n service is not practicable in respect of\n\n ascertained persons or if the persons are\n\n unascertainable then resort should be had to\n\n service of notice by publication. In such a\n\n case, the Court should see that they are\n\n published in such dailies that the persons\n\n interested are likely to read it, This is because\n\n any decision rendered in a suit filed with\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/13permission of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8\n\n will be binding on persons who are not parties\n\n to the suit and they will not be in a position to\n\n contest the suit on a subsequent occasion as\n\n the earlier decision would operates as res\n\n judicate by virtue of Explanation 6 tosection\n\n 11of the Civil Procedure Code which provides\n\n that where persons litigate bonafide in respect\n\n of a public right or of a private right claimed in\n\n common for themselves and others, all\n\n persons interested in such right shall, for the\n\n purposes of this section, be deemed to claim\n\n under the persons so litigating'. Hence a heavy\n\n duty is cast on the Court to meticulously follow\n\n the procedure prescribed byOrder 1 Rule 8\n\n C.P.C. Even though a defendant against whom\n\n a decree is sought may not raise any such\n\n objection against the plaintiff (5) The\n\n provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 do not enjoin that\n\n the plaintiffs should obtain before hand the\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/14authority of those whom they seek to\n\n represent, the reason being that it will be open\n\n to all person having the same interest to get\n\n themselves impleaded and either support the\n\n plaintiff or oppose him in the suit. Similarly, it\n\n will not be open to the defendants to state that\n\n they do not seek to represent the class of\n\n persons against whom the suit is sought to be\n\n filed in a representative capacity. The above\n\n principles can be deduced from the following\n\n decisions.A.I.R. 1933 Privy Council 183; A.I.R. 1972 Ker\n\n 269; A.I.R. 1943 Mad 161; A.I.R. 1933 Lah\n\n 749; A.I.R. 1959 Bom 491; A.I.R. 1965 Ker\n\n 200; A.I.R. 1977 All 421.......There may be some inter se dispute between\n\n the plaintiffs and their followers on the one\n\n side and certain group of residents of Chellam\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/15North and South Streets on the other. But that\n\n cannot in any way debar the plaintiffs from\n\n filing the suit with the leave of the Court under\n\n Order 1 Rule 8. What is necessary is that the\n\n plaintiffs should obtain the permission of the\n\n Court to institute the suit in a representative\n\n capacity under Order 1 Rule 8. The rules does\n\n not enjoin that the plaintiffs should obtain\n\n before hand the authority of those on whose\n\n behalf they seek to institute the suit with the\n\n leave of the Court under Order1 Rule 8. It is\n\n not the concern of the defendants whether the\n\n persons whom the plaintiffs seek to represent\n\n see eye to eye with the plaintiffs in the matter\n\n of the conduct of the suit. It will be open to\n\n any of the persons whom the plaintiffs seek to\n\n represent to get himself impleaded in the suit\n\n and get the suit decreed differently or even\n\n dismissed if, according to him, no relief as\n\n prayed for by the plaintiffs, should be granted\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/16by the Court. Therefore, apart from the fact\n\n that the plaintiffs need not be supported by\n\n the previous consent of all those persons\n\n whom they seek to represent as plaintiffs in\n\n the suit, the defendants have no locus standi\n\n to say that the plaintiffs are not competent to\n\n represent the others whom the seek to\n\n represent.A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 682; A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 44;\n\n ref.In A.I.R 1932 Bombay 65 it has been held that\n\n it is not permissible for a Court to dismiss a\n\n suit under Order 1 Rule 8 simply on the\n\n ground that some persons object to the\n\n plaintiffs carrying on the suit.......Further, it is not for the defendants to object\n\n to the leave being granted to the plaintiffs to\n\n sue the defendants in a representative\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/17capacity. It has been held in 1913 I.L.R. 36\n\n Madras. 418 thus: 'A plaintiff may be allowed\n\n to sue certain defendants undersection 30C.P.C. Of 1882, as representing certain others\n\n in spite of the objection or refusal of the\n\n defendants on record to represent the others\n\n the consent of the defendants on record not\n\n being necessary'.......In this context, it is necessary to state that in\n\n a suit which is filed with the permission of\n\n Court under Order 1 Rule 8 no question of\n\n misjoinder or non-joinder of parties would\n\n arise. The very purpose of filing a suit underOrder 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is because it will be\n\n inconvenient to implead all the necessary\n\n parties to the suit. Once the necessary notice\n\n under Order 1 Rule 8 is published it will be\n\n open to the other parties to get themselves\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/18impleaded and either support the plaintiffs or\n\n oppose the relief claimed by the plaintiffs.\n\n Therefore, the finding of the trial Court on\n\n issue No.4 viz., that the suit is bad for non-\n\n joinder and misjoinder is equally erroneous\n\n and is therefore set aside.'12. Considering the position of law as regards\n\n theOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C., as amply brought out by the\n\n Division Bench in the abovecited decision, it is seen\n\n that once the Court had deemed it fit to take the\n\n application on file and issue notice to the defendants\n\n concerned as well as the objectors and the plaintiff also\n\n having effected notice, in respect of the same, by way\n\n of the paper publication, as provided under the law, it\n\n is found that the same itself would amount to presume\n\n that the Court had granted necessary permission underOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C. If at all the objectors, to whom\n\n the notice had been sent, have any resistance to the\n\n abovesaid application preferred by the plaintiff, at the\n\n most, they are entitled only to putforth their objections\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/19with reference to the same and if they deemed it fit, as\n\n provided underOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C., they can always\n\n apply to the Court concerned to be made as parties to\n\n the suit of the plaint and accordingly, get themselves\n\n impleaded and thereby, thereafter putforth their\n\n respective cases in the suit and accordingly, it is found\n\n that thereafter, the Court below, after considering the\n\n rival contentions of the parties in respect of the\n\n abovesaid issue, after framing necessary issues in the\n\n suit, should proceed to determine the same as well as\n\n the other issues and thereby, dispose of the suit.\n\n However, insofar as this case is concerned, the\n\n abovesaid procedure contemplated in the law as well\n\n as outlined in the abovecited decision, having not been\n\n followed, on the abovesaid ground alone, it is seen that\n\n the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.13.In the decision inRoyal Villa Residents'\n\n Association vs. The Project Management Committee,\n\n reported in 2013 (4) CTC 205, it has been held that\n\n even if the suit had been filed without complying with\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/20the provisions ofOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C., the only course\n\n available to the Court concerned is to frame necessary\n\n issues with reference to the same during the course of\n\n trial and determine the issue either way and on that\n\n ground, the Court would not be entitled to strike off\n\n the suit for non-compliance of the provision and this\n\n position of law has been outlined in the abovecited\n\n decision in the following manner:'Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),\n\n Order 1, Rule 8 – Non compliance of provision\n\n – Striking out of Plaint – Whether there has\n\n been compliance of Order 1, Rule 8, to be\n\n decided by framing issues during trial – Plaint\n\n cannot be struck off in Revision for\n\n noncompliance of provision – Civil Revision\n\n Petition dismissed.Facts : Respondents herein filed Suit for\n\n injunction. Instant Revision has been preferred\n\n by Defendant in Suit for striking out of Plaint in\n\n Suit on account of non-compliance of Order 1,\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/21Rule 8 of CPC.Held : According to me, without going into the\n\n merits of the contentions raised by both the\n\n parties, at this stage, the suit cannot be struck\n\n down on the ground of non-compliance of\n\n Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. To\n\n attract the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil\n\n Procedure Code, the suit must have been filed\n\n in the representative capacity and admittedly,\n\n the suit was filed by the respondents\n\n representing the Project Management\n\n Committee, Kotturpruam Officers Cooperative\n\n Housing Society which is a registered body\n\n under theSocieties Registration Actand where\n\n the Project Management Committee which is a\n\n part of the Officers Co-operative Housing\n\n Society can file a suit without complying with\n\n the provisions of order 1 Rule 8 of Civil\n\n Procedure Code can be decided only during\n\n trial by framing necessary issues to that effect.\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/22Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be stated\n\n that the suit filed by the respondents is not\n\n maintainable for non-compliance of Order 1\n\n Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. Further, the\n\n Honourable Judge Mr.Justice P.Sadasivam, as\n\n he then was held in Kamaraj Bhavan, Lower\n\n Bazaar Road, uthagamandalam v. A.Rahim and\n\n 3 others, 1996-2-L.W 456(cited supra) held\n\n that the failure of the plaintiffs to obtain\n\n permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil\n\n Procedure Code is only a procedural\n\n irregularity and the permission can be obtained\n\n even during the pendency of the appeal and in\n\n that reported case, permission was granted in\n\n the Second Appeal stage. Therefore, in my\n\n opinion, plaint cannot be struck off on the\n\n ground that the suit was not filed by complying\n\n with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil\n\n Procedure Code and in my opinion, the same\n\n has to be decided during trial by framing\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/23necessary issues. Hence, I do not find any\n\n merit in the revision Petition and the same is\n\n accordingly dismissed. Consequently,\n\n connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.No costs.14. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in\n\n the decision inChennimalai Yarns Pvt., Limited vs.\n\n S.Chandrasekar, reported in 2005 (5) CTC 411 and the\n\n abovesaid position of law is outlined as follows:'21. Order 1, Rule 8,C.P.C. is the enabling\n\n Rule, prescribing the condition to file the suit\n\n or to be sued in the Representative Capacity.\n\n When the permission has been granted, it\n\n becomes the duty of the Court to direct notice\n\n to be given to the opposite parties. It is\n\n contended that the requirements of Order 1,\n\n Rule 8,C.P.C. has not been complied with and\n\n that notice to other shareholders has not been\n\n issued. In support of this contention that no\n\n public notice was issued to the other\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/24shareholders, no material had been produced.\n\n In the absence of any material, it is not\n\n possible to accept the contention that\n\n necessary conditions of Order 1, Rule 8,C.P.C.\n\n was not complied with. The contention of the\n\n Revision Petitioners raising objection regarding\n\n the Representative Capacity of D-6 cannot be\n\n accepted. However, it is open to the parties to\n\n put-forth their objection at the time of\n\n adducing evidence.'15. Therefore, it could be gathered from the\n\n abovecited decisions, if at all either the defendants or\n\n the objectors have any resistance or objection to the\n\n entitlement of the plaintiff to file the suit in the\n\n representative capacity, the defendants should putforth\n\n their pleas in the written statement or in the counter\n\n and the objectors, after putting forth their objections,\n\n should apply to the Court to get themselves impleaded\n\n in the lis and also reiterating their objections with\n\n reference to the entitlement of the plaintiff to sue in\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/25the representative capacity and thereafter, the course\n\n open to the Court is to frame issues on that point and\n\n determine the same in accordance with law."14. In the case on hand, having already allowed the petition by\n\n order dated 2.12.2013, the option available to the Trial Court could\n\n only be to frame issues on that aspect and should have passed in\n\n order in accordance with law whereas the Trial Court had\n\n subsequently, by order dated 20.1.2017, had dismissed the Application\n\n underOrder I Rule 8 CPC. Further, it is seen that the petitioners have\n\n filed the documents relating to the earlier suit in respect of the very\n\n same properties filed in the representative capacity, however, the Trial\n\n Court had ignored the documents and rendered a wrong finding that\n\n the petitioners have not filed any document. Therefore, this court is of\n\n the opinion that the order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and\n\n suffers from infirmity. Further, it has been submitted by the learned\n\n counsel for the respondents that notice is not properly served underOrder I Rule 8 CPC.15. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the\n\n matter is remitted back to the Trial Court. The petitioners are directed\n\n to issue proper notice in accordance with law and thereafter the court,\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/26apart from framing other necessary issues, shall frame the issue on\n\n the aspect of right of the plaintiffs to file the suit in their representative\n\n capacity and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. No costs. The\n\n connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.29.7.2021.Index: Yes/No.\n Internet: Yes/No.\n ssk.To1. District Munsif,\n Tiruvarur.2. Commissioner,\n Tiruvarur Municipality,\n Thiruvarur Demu,\n Illakka and Thiruvarur Town and Taluk,\n Tiruvarur District.3. Tahsildar,\n Tiruvarur, Thiruvarur Demu,\n Illakka and Thiruvarur Taluk and Town,\n Tiruvarur District.4. District Collector,\n Tiruvarur District,\n Thiruvarur Demu,\n Illakka and Thiruvarur Taluk,\n Vilamal Village.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/27A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.Ssk.C.R.P. (PD) No.1393 of 2017andC.M.P.No.6441 of 201729.7.2021.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ |
859cf242-14f0-51ba-a6d2-ecf0619959a8 | court_cases | Andhra Pradesh High Court - AmravatiPalugulla Rami Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 February, 2023THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI\n\n Criminal Petition No.597 of 2023\n\nORDER :This Criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail\n\nunderSection 438of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973\n\n('CrPC'), by petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.2 of 2023 of\n\nMakkuva Police Station, Parvathipuram, registered against the\n\npetitioner and one another for the offence punishable underSection 420r/w 34IPCalleging that the petitioner promised the\n\ncomplainant that he would get a job for the wife of the\n\ncomplainant in civil services and for that purpose he received a\n\ntotal amount of Rs.7,50,199/- credited to the account of his son\n\nstarting from the date 13.06.2015 to 04.01.2018, but he failed\n\nto fulfill the promise.2. The de facto complainant sent similar complaint to the\n\nCommandant, 198 BNCRPF, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh,\n\non 11.06.2021 complaining the same. The petitioner submitted\n\na reply dated 22.07.2021 to the Commanding Officer denying\n\nthe allegation and if at all any money has been received by his\n\nson, he is no way connected to it and that the de facto\n\ncomplainant was also working with the petitioner.3. The petitioner further stated in the reply that his son and\n\nthe de facto complainant approached when Rama Krishna to\n\nprovide a job and both of them, had given money to Rama2Crl.P.No.597 of 2023\n\nKrishna and in that connection, the de facto complainant\n\ntransferred the said amount to the son of the petitioner asking\n\nhim to transfer the same to Rama Krishna who in turn\n\ntransferred to the amount to the son of the petitioner, but did\n\nnot provide job. The learned counsel for the petitioner, thus\n\nsubmitted that the petitioner is also a victim in the hands of the\n\nRama Krishna. He further submitted that since the de facto\n\ncomplainant intends to recover the amount from the son of the\n\npetitioner, he planted the petitioner also in the offence just for\n\nthe purpose of coercively recovering of the amount as the\n\npetitioner is working as a government servant. He further\n\nsubmitted that the alleged offence is related to many years back\n\nand that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail or\n\nsuch he would put to hardship by losing the job.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented that\n\nthe 2nd petitioner/de facto complainant is formally shown in the\n\npetition, but is not a necessary party and that it is only due to\n\nprocedure adopted in other matters where notice should go to\n\nthe de facto complainant, the same has been followed by\n\noverlook.5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st\n\nrespondent submitted that since the offence punishable undersection 420IPC is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court3Crl.P.No.597 of 2023\n\nin Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another1.\n\nThe petitioner need not approach this Court seeking this\n\nrelief and he further stated that the investigation is still\n\npending.6. In view of the fact that the decision of the Supreme\n\nCourt is squarely applicable to the present case, the\n\npolice are directed to follow the directions and guidelines\n\nof the Supreme Court in the decision in Arnesh Kumar's\n\ncase (Supra 1) without fail. Giving such liberty to the\n\npetitioner to avail the benefit under Section 41A Cr.P.C.,\n\nthe petition is disposed of.7. Accordingly, the petition is closed.Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall\nstand closed.____________________________\n JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI\n\n\nDate : 07-02-2023\nASR1(2014) 8 SCC 273 |
ab495a56-080f-582b-8e71-28bda817dfd8 | court_cases | Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurHasmukh vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 May, 2021Author:Arun BhansaliBench:Arun BhansaliHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n JODHPUR\n S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6567/2021\n\nHasmukh S/o Dahannalal Soni, Aged About 38 Years, Village\nKatwara, District Gujrat, Gujrat. (At Present Lodged At District\nJail Chittorgarh).\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.\n ----Respondent\n\n\nFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Singh through V.C.\nFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P.\n\n\n\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALIOrder\n\n27/05/2021\n\n The present bail application has been filed underSection 439Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection\n\nwith FIR No. 281/2009, Police Station Rawatbhata, District\n\nChittorgarh, for the offence underSections 379,395,396and449IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the\n\napplicant could not remain present during the course of trial on\n\n17.02.2021 and has surrendered before the trial court on\n\n06.03.2021, however, his application for bail, has been rejected. It\n\nis prayed that the applicant shall not in future miss the attendance\n\nat the trial and that he may be accorded benefit of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and\n\nsubmitted that strict conditions be imposed, in case, the applicant\n\nis granted bail.(Downloaded on 29/05/2021 at 08:27:33 PM)(2 of 2) [CRLMB-6567/2021]\n\n\n\n In the circumstances of the case, without expressing any\n\n opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that\n\n the bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be accepted.Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered\n\n that the accused-applicant - Hasmukh S/o Dahannalal Soni\n\n arrested in connection with FIR No. 281/2009, Police Station\n\n Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail;\n\n provided he furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty\n\n Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty\n\n Five Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the learned trial court\n\n with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of\n\n hearing and as and when called upon to do so.It would be required of the applicant to remain present\n\n before the trial court on each date, which is fixed by the trial court\n\n pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Additional\n\n District & Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh and that it would be\n\n ensured that as and when any witness is produced, he would be\n\n duly cross-examined and would not be returned back unexamined.In case of failure of the applicant either to remain present\n\n and/or do the requisite i.e. cross-examination, the trial court\n\n would be free to take proceedings in accordance with law.(ARUN BHANSALI),J\n\n 77-PKS/-(Downloaded on 29/05/2021 at 08:27:33 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) |
fb157ea0-1ee4-53f7-87d7-d173afe8bba2 | court_cases | Karnataka High CourtSri.Shashikant @ Pintu S/O Chidanand ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2020Author:Shivashankar AmarannavarBench:Shivashankar AmarannavarIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n DHARWAD BENCH\n\n DATED THIS THE 5 t h DAY OF AUGUST 2020\n BEFORE\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR\n\n CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100165 OF 2020\n\n BETWEEN\n\n SRI.SHASHIKANT @ PINTU\n S/O CHIDANAND PUNDIPALLE\n AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,\n R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI,\n DIST: BELAGAVI.\n ... PETITIONER\n (BY SRI.S M MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n THE STATE OF KARNATAKA\n THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR\n AIGALI POLICE STATION,\n TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI,\n REPRESENTED BY THE\n STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,\n HIGH COURT BUILDING,\n HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,\n AT: DHARWAD BENCH.\n ... RESPONDENT\n (BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)\n\n THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,\n PRAYING THAT THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 BE\n ENLARGED ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.109/2020 (AIGALI\n P.S.CRIME NO.136/2019) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII\n ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR THE\n OFFENCNE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376, 342, 109 R/W\n SECTION 34 OFIPC.\n 2\n\n\n\n\n THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS\n\nDAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n\n\n ORDERThis petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1\n\nunderSection 439of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime\n\nNo.136/2019 of Aigali Police Station registered for the\n\noffence punishable underSections 376,342and109of IPC\n\nread withSection 34of IPC pending on the file VIII Addl.\n\nDistrict and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C. No.109/2020.2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant\n\nis a victim girl and she has lodged complaint and it is\n\nalleged in the complaint that she was residing with her\n\nmother Smt. Lakshmi and younger brothers. About eight\n\nyears back she had under went surgery for the gland\n\ngrown on the back of the head. About five months back\n\nthe petitioner-accused No.1 alleged to have met the\n\nmother of the complainant obtained signatures on some\n\ndocuments by saying that the certificates will be issued for\n\nthe physically handicapped persons. Thereafter he was3making phone calls to her mother asking her to furnish\n\nphotographs and pass book of the Bank. However, her\n\nmother objected for it and told him not to make any phone\n\ncalls.3. It is further alleged in the complaint that on\n\n14.11.2019 her mother and younger brother Appasaheb\n\nwent to the coolie work in the morning. Another younger\n\nbrother Sangamesh who had a separate room for his study\n\npurpose went there. Thereafter, at about 10.30 a.m. the\n\npetitioner-accused No.1 came in front of her house and\n\nasked her to come to the house of Hussain @ Annappa\n\nMohammad Honavad on the ground that she had to sign.\n\nTherefore at about 11 a.m. she went to the house of\n\nHussain @ Annappa Mohammad Honavad. At that time\n\nthe petitioner asked her to come inside the house to sign\n\nthe document. Thereafter she was taken inside the house\n\nand shown some of the papers kept on the cot. Therefore\n\nwhen she went with an intention to sign the documents he\n\nbolted the door and started molesting her. He closed her4mouth with duppatta and committed the rape by felling her\n\non the ground. In the meanwhile, the public in the near by\n\nhouse came and started knocking the door. On hearing\n\nthe same and voices of the public he wok up. At that time\n\nsome people came from the other door by video graphing\n\nthe incident with their mobile and caught hold him.\n\nTherefore in a hurry the complainant wore her cloths and\n\nwent to the house and intimated the same with her mother\n\nand relatives. Therefore, after discussing the matter she\n\nlodged a complaint at about 8.15 p.m. The case has been\n\nregistered in Crime No.136/2019 of Aigali Police Station for\n\nthe offence punishable underSections 376,342,109r/wSection 34of IPC. On 15.11.2019 petitioner-accused No.1\n\ncame to be arrested at 12.30 p.m. The petitioner filed the\n\nbail petition and 8th Addl. District and Sessions Judge,\n\nBelagavi has rejected the same by order dated\n\n20.12.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court\n\nseeking bail.54. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused\n\nNo.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the\n\nrecords.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1\n\nargued that though the alleged incident has taken place at\n\n11 a.m on 14.11.2019, the complaint came to be filed in\n\nthe evening at 8.15 p.m. and there is a delay in filing the\n\ncomplaint which goes to show that the petitioner-accused\n\nNo.1 has been falsely implicated. It is his further\n\nsubmission that there are no injuries on the victim and\n\nalso on the petitioner-accused No.1. It is his further\n\nsubmission that RFSL report reveals that no seminal stains\n\non the cloths seized which were belonging to the victim girl\n\nand the doctor has opined based on the said RFSL report\n\nthat seminal stains are not detected on the article Nos.1\n\nto 7 of the alleged victim. It is his further submission that\n\nthe petitioner-accused No.1 is a News Reporter and he is\n\nalso an R.T.I. activist and he has filed applications before\n\nPDO and other Government Officials seeking information6and he was threatened by Government Officials and Aigali\n\nPolice to withdraw the said applications otherwise a false\n\ncase of rape will be foisted against him and to strengthen\n\nthe said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner-\n\naccused No.1 has produced the office copies of applications\n\nand representations given by the petitioner-accused No.1\n\nand also the copy of Udayavani News Paper dated\n\n06.10.2018. It is his further submission that petitioner-\n\naccused No.1 is innocent and he has been falsely\n\nimplicated in the case and prays to allow the petition.6. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that there\n\nare eye witnesses to the incident and the offence\n\ncommitted by the petitioner-accused No.1 is heinous\n\noffence of rape. Eye witnesses have given statement\n\nbefore the Magistrate underSection 164of Cr.P.C. It is\n\nhis further submission that if petitioner-accused No.1\n\ngranted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witness\n\nand flee from justice. With this he prays to reject the bail\n\npetition.77. Having regard to the submission made by the\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the\n\nlearned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge\n\nsheet records. Even according to the complaint\n\naverments, some persons have made videograph of the\n\nincident. But the charge sheet material does not find\n\nseizure of the said mobile phone containing the video\n\ngraph of the incident. The medical examination report of\n\nthe victim girl reveals that she has no injuries. The\n\nMedical examination of accused also reveal that he has no\n\ninjuries and there are no seminal stains even though he\n\ncaught red hand on the spot. Article Nos.1 to 7 which\n\nbelong to victim girl which were seized and sent to RFSL\n\nfor examination. RFSL in it's report dated 26.02.2020 has\n\nopined that there are no seminal stains in article Nos. 1 to7. On the basis of this RFSL report, doctor who examined\n\nthe victim girl has given his opinion that there are no\n\nseminal stains detected in article Nos.1 to 7 of alleged\n\nvictim of rape. The petitioner has produced some office\n\ncopies of the representation given by him to the public8servants seeking information underRTI Actand also the\n\ncomplaint to Police Complaint Authority. In the said\n\ncomplaint to Police Complaint Authority dated 17.10.2018,\n\nthere is a mention that PSI Aigali Police Station has\n\nthreatened the petitioner-accused No.1 that if he insist for\n\nfurnishing information underRTI Act, a false case of rape\n\nwill be foisted against him. A copy of Udayavani news\n\npaper dated 06.10.2018 containing news items wherein it\n\nis mentioned that the petitioner and another were given\n\nlife threat for information sought by them. On looking to\n\nthe medical certificate of the victim and petitioner-accused\n\nNo.1 and the said documents produced by the petitioner-\n\naccused No.1 goes to show that there is strength in the\n\ncontention of the petitioner-accused No.1 that a false case\n\nhas been registered against him.8. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an\n\napplication for bail are:"(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable\n ground to believe that the accused had committed9the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of\n conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or\n fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour,\n means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)\n likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii)\n reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being\n tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of\n justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a\n vague allegation that the accused may tamper with\n the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to\n refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that\n his mere presence at large would intimidate the\n witnesses or if there is material to show that he will\n use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the\n evidence, then bail will be refused."9. In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case\n\nof DATARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARA PRADESH AND\n\nANOTHER, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is\n the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that\n a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.\n However, there are instances in our criminal law\n where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused\n with regard to some specific offences but that is10another matter and does not detract from the\n fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.\n Yet another important facet of our criminal\n jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general\n rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a\n correction home (whichever expression one may\n wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of\n these basic principles appear to have been lost sight\n of with the result that more and more persons are\n being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does\n not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to\n our society."10. In the present case the investigation is completed.\n\nNo grounds have been made out by the prosecution to\n\nshow that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused\n\nNo.1 is necessary. The petitioner-accused No.1 is residing\n\nin the address shown in cause title and the same is not\n\ndisputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in\n\nthe event of grant of bail, the accused No.1 is likely to\n\ncause threat to the complainant and other prosecution\n\nwitnesses. The said objection may be set right by\n\nimposing some stringent conditions.1111. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court\n\nis of the considered view that there are valid grounds for\n\ngrant bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the\n\nfollowing.ORDER\n\n The petition filed underSection 439of Cr.P.C. is\n\nallowed.The petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail\n\nin Crime No.136/2019 of Aigali P.S., pending in\n\nS.C.No.109/2020 on the file of VIII Addl. District and\n\nSessions Judge, Belagavi, subject to the following\n\nconditions.i) The petitioner shall execute a personal\n bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh\n rupees only) with one surety for the like sum\n to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.In view of the Covid-2019 petitioner is\n permitted to furnish surety within two months.ii) The petitioner shall not indulge or\n tamper prosecution witnesses in any manner.12iii) The petitioner shall not leave the\n jurisdiction of the Sessions Court without prior\n permission till disposal of the case.iv) The petitioner shall mark his attendance\n before concerned Police Station on every\n Second Sunday between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. till\n disposal of the case registered against him.Sd/-JUDGE\n\nHmb |
14abbe39-92c2-5b65-b356-801c61234b73 | court_cases | Bangalore District Court/ Sri Chandramouli vs S/O.Late Shivabasappa on 20 June, 2020IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND\n SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)\n\n Dated this the 20 th day of June, 2020\n\n PRESENT :-\n\n Sri S.R.MANIKYA, B.Sc., LL.B.,\n LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore, (CCH-62)\n\n Criminal Appeal No.750/2016\n\n Appellant / Sri Chandramouli\n Accused: S/o.Late Shivabasappa\n Aged about 54 years\n R/a. No.330, (New 3380)\n 3rd cross, 11th main, A1 Block\n Vijayanagara 2nd Stage\n Mysore-570 017.\n\n (By Sri.RDK, Adv.)\n\n V/s.\n Respondent / Dr.B.N.Ramesh\n Complainant: S/o.Dr.B.M.Narayana\n Aged about 60 years\n R/a.No.3336, Sruthi Nilaya\n First 'B' Cross\n First 'A' Main, Koreamangala\n 8th Block, Bangalore-95.\n\n (By Sri.P.M., Adv.)\n\n JUDGMENTThis is an appeal preferred against the judgment passed\nby the learned XX ACMM, Bengaluru wherein the learned X\nACMM, Bengaluru has convicted the accused in C.C. No.\n14821/2014 dated 03.05.2016 and convicted the accused for2 Crl.A. No.750/2016an offence punishable underSection 138of N.I. Act and\nsentenced him to pay fine of Rs.4,50,000/- and ordered for\ncompensation of Rs.4,40,000/- to the complainant and\nRs.10,000/- to be paid to the State as fine amount.2. To avoid confusion, the parties are referred to as\ncomplainant and accused as per their ranks in the Court\nbelow.3. The brief facts of the complainants' case is that;\n The complainant and accused are known to each other\nand as the accused was the real estate agent he was\nintroduced to the complainant and he has promised to get a\nsite registered infavour of the complainant and for that\npurpose he has requested the complainant to pay the\namount of Rs.3,40,000/- as advance payment towards the\npurchase of site and agreed to execute the sale deed with\nrespect to the site after fixing the consideration of the site.\nBut inspite of lapse of time, the accused has not complied\nwith the agreed terms between the complainant and the\naccused and lastly when the complainant has requested to\nrepay the amount, the accused issued a cheque assuring\nthat the same will be honoured when it is presented for\nencashment. But when the cheque was presented on\n17.10.2013, the same was dishonoured with a shara of\ninsufficient funds and though notice was issued to the\naccused since he has not repaid the amount, the complaint\nwas filed.3 Crl.A. No.750/20164. Inorder to prove the case of the complainant,\ncomplainant was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1\nto Ex.P.6 and no defence evidence has been adduced and\nafter conclusion of complaint evidence learned trial judge has\npassed the conviction judgment holding that the accused has\ncommitted the offence punishable underSection 138of N.I.\nAct.5. Appellant urges amongst other grounds contending\nthat the judgment passed by the trial court is manifestly\nerroneous to the facts and circumstances of the case. The\nlearned trial judge has wrongly analyzed the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and given conviction on wrong\nnotion and after examination of PW-1 there was no sufficient\nopportunity provided to cross-examine PW-1 and also to\nadduce evidence on behalf of the accused to prove the\ndefence. The learned trial judge erred in dispensing the\nrecording of statement underSection 313of Cr.P.C., The\nlearned trial judge has not at all considered the fact of\nappellant suffered heart attack and he was operated in\nVikram Hospital, Mysuru and he was taken treatment till\nJanuary 2016 and thereafter in the month of February 2016,\nappellants daughter met with accident and she was undertreatment in Apolo Hospital , Mysuru. Hence, he was unable\nto appear before the Court and produce documents before\nthe court and establish his defence. The appellant may be\npermitted to adduce additional grounds and to produce4 Crl.A. No.750/2016document. When a sufficient opportunity has not been given\neither for cross-examination and also for leading evidence of\naccused, the judgment passed by the trial court will have to\nbe considered as erroneous judgment and interference of\nappellate court is a necessary. Hence, this appeal and prayed\nto interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court and\nto allow the petition.6. Since, the appellant and Respondent remained\nabsent, argument was taken as heard and posted for\njudgment. In the mean while, the respondent counsel\nsubmits that the joint memo was filed with regard to the\ncompromise and same may be considered and order may be\npassed on that joint memo.7. Though the joint memo has been filed by the\nappellant in this case after filing of the joint memo the\naccused has not complied the joint memo and not paid the\namount to the respondent as agreed. According to the terms\nof the joint memo, the accused has to pay a sum of\nRs.3,30,000/- and it was agreed to pay the amount on or\nbefore 04.10.2018 and it was also agreed between the parties\nthat Rs.90,000/- which is in deposit before the trial court will\nhave to be paid to the complainant. For the joint memo both\nthe parties have signed and both the counsels have also\nsubmitted their signature to the joint memo. But, later on the\naccused has gone back with the terms of the joint memo and\nhence now it has become necessary to pass judgment on5 Crl.A. No.750/2016merits of the case. Hence, now I have to raise points for\nconsideration before the court.i. Whether the appellant proves that there was no\n existing liability as on the date of issue of\n cheque?ii. Whether the appellant has rebutted the\n presumption drawn underSection 139of N.I.\n Act?iii. Whether the judgment passed by the trial court\n is erroneous and calls for interference by this\n court?iv. What Order?8. My findings on the above points are as under:Point No.i & ii : In the negative\n\n Point No.iii : Partly affirmative only with respect\n to the sentence passed and amount of\n fine imposed by the trial court.Point No.iv : As per the final order for the following:R E A SON S9. Point No.i & ii:- Now, in this case the appellant\nhas took up a specific contention that since there was no\nliability as on the date of issue of cheque and the cheque was\nissued as an advance payment towards the purchase of site\nat Devanahalli and upon failure to furnish relevant\ndocuments and failed to execute the sale deed he has\npromised to repay the amount within seven months and for6 Crl.A. No.750/2016that purpose the cheque was issued and the same was\ndishonoured with a shara of insufficient funds. Though the\naccused has contended in the appeal memorandum that\nthere was no ample opportunity provided for cross-\nexamination of PW-1 and dispensed with the statement to be\nrecorded underSection 313of Cr.P.C., the judgment passed\nis highly erroneous and the defence of the accused has not at\nall accepted. But by perusing the order sheet it can be\nnoticed that there was sufficient opportunity provided for the\nappellant to cross-examine PW-1. But he has not availed that\nopportunity.10. Though at the inception of the appeal memorandum\nhe has specifically denied the liability and issue of cheque,\nbut later on he has admitted the liability and filed the joint\nmemo admitting to repay the amount in installments. By\nvirtue of the filing of joint memo he has admitted his liability\nto the extent of cheque amount and also agreed to pay within\na certain period. When such being the case, the question of\nconsidering the non existing liability of the accused as\ncontended in the appeal memorandum would not arise at all.\nFurther, when the joint memo is filed admitting the liability\nthe question of rebutting the presumption drawn in favour of\nthe complainant would also does not arise. Under such\ncircumstances I have no hesitation to answer point No.i and\nii in negative.7 Crl.A. No.750/201611. Point No.iii:- Now, in this case the cheque\namount was Rs.3,40,000/-. The trial judge has come to the\nconclusion that the accused has committed the offence underSection 138of N.I. Act. But the learned trial judge has\nimposed fine of Rs.4,50,000/- for which no reason has been\nassigned. According to the well established principles of law if\nan offence underSection 138has been established either the\ncheque amount will have to be imposed as fine or double the\ncheque amount will have to be imposed as fine. Though at the\ninspection of the appeal the appellant has denied the liability\nand issue of cheque but in a subsequent development the\nappellant and respondent counsels have filed a joint memo\nwherein the appellant has specifically agreed to pay an\namount of Rs.3,40,000/- which is the cheque amount on\nvarious dates and accordingly the joint memo was filed which\nwas recorded and the same was posted for payment. Since,\nthe accused has not complied the terms of the joint memo and\nnot paid the amount as agreed now it has become necessary\nto pass the judgment on merits since the appellant has not\nturned up after filing of the joint memo and not paid the\namount. As per well established principles of law the criminal\nappeal cannot be dismissed for non prosecution, hence the\nappeal has to be disposed on merits. Hence, I have considered\nthe point No.i and ii in dispose of the appeal on merits and\naccordingly on merits it is disposed off. But the agreed\namount and the cheque amount is only Rs.3,40,000/- hence\nfine amount has to be imposed to the extent of cheque\namount. But the learned trial judge has passed an order to8 Crl.A. No.750/2016pay fine of Rs.4,50,000/- for which no reason has been\nassigned. Accordingly to the well established principles of law\nif an offence underSection 138has been established either\nthe cheque amount will have to be imposed as fine or double\nthe cheque amount will have to be imposed as fine. Though at\nthe inception of the appeal the appellant has denied the\nliability and issue of cheque, but in a subsequent development\nthe appellant and respondent and their counsels have filed a\njoint memo wherein the appellant has specifically agreed to\npay an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- which is the cheque amount\non various dates and accordingly the joint memo was filed\nwhich was recorded and the same was posted for payment.\nSince, the accused has not complied the terms of the joint\nmemo and not paid the amount as agreed now it has become\nnecessary to pass the judgment on merits since the appellant\nhas not turned up after filing of the joint memo and not paid\nthe amount. As per well established principles of law the\ncriminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non prosecution,\nhence the appeal has to be disposed on merits. Hence, I have\nconsidered the point No.i and ii in dispose of the appeal on\nmerits and accordingly on merits it is dispoed off. But the\nagreed amount and the cheque amount is only Rs.3,40,000/-\nhence fine amount has to be imposed to the extent of cheque\namount. But the learned trial judge has passed an order to\npay fine of Rs.4,50,000/- for which no reason has been\nassigned. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside by partly\nallowing the appeal with respect to the sentence passed by the\ntrial court. Hence, I have no hesitation to answer point No.iii9 Crl.A. No.750/2016in partly affirmative only with respect to fine imposed to the\nextent of Rs.4,50,000/-.12. POINT No.4:- Having regard to my above\nobservations and finding on point No.i to iii, I proceed to pass\nthe following:-OR D E R\n\n The appeal preferred by the\n appellant/accused underSec.374(3)of Cr.PC\n is hereby partly allowed with respect to the\n sentence passed by the trial court. No order\n as to costs.The conviction order passed by the trial\n court for an offence punishable underSection\n 138of N.I. Act is hereby confirmed and\n consequently the accused is directed to pay a\n sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as a fine out of that\n Rs.3,40,000/- is to be paid to the complainant\n as a compensation and Rs.10,000/- to be paid\n to the state.Consequently, the judgment passed by\n the trial Court is modified as stated above.Send back the LCR with the copy of this\n judgment to the Court below forthwith.\n(Dictated to the stenographer on the computer, corrected and then pronounced\nby me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of June, 2020).(S.R.MANIKYA)\n LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore City.10 Crl.A. No.750/201611 Crl.A. No.750/2016Judgment pronounced in\n the Open Court (vide separate\n order)\n O R DE R\n\n The appeal preferred by the\n appellant/accused u/Sec.374(3)of Cr.P.C is hereby partly allowed\n with respect to the sentence\n passed by the trial court. No\n order as to costs.The conviction order passed\n by the trial court for an offence\n punishable underSection 138of\n N.I. Act is hereby confirmed and\n consequently the accused is\n directed to pay a sum of\n Rs.3,50,000/- as a fine out of\n that Rs.3,40,000/- is to be paid\n to the complainant as a\n compensation and Rs.10,000/-to be paid to the state.Consequently, the judgment\n passed by the trial Court is\n modified as stated above.Send back the LCR with the\n copy of this judgment to the\n Court below forthwith.LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bengaluru City.12 Crl.A. No.750/2016 |
1a7edee8-5692-56fb-a7f6-a622bc5d6a20 | court_cases | Karnataka High CourtShivappa @ Shivananda Fakkirappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2021Author:Shivashankar AmarannavarBench:Shivashankar Amarannavar1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n DHARWAD BENCH\n\n DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF JUNE, 2021\n BEFORE\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR\n\n CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101540 OF 2020\n\n BETWEEN\n\n SHIVAPPA @ SHIV ANANDAPPA\n FAKKIRAPPA SAVA DATTI @ KUPPANA VAR\n AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,\n NOW R/O. RAMAPUR SITE,\n NEAR AMBABAVAN I TEMPLE,\n SAVADATTI, DIST RICT. BELA GAVI.\n ...PETITIONER\n (BY SRI.ARAVIND D KULKARNI ,ADV.)\n\n AND\n\n THE STATE OF KARNATAKA\n THROUGH BYAD GI POLI CE STATION\n REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,\n HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,\n DHARWAD.\n ...RESPONDENT\n\n (BY SRI.RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP)\n\n\n THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF\n\n CR.P.C., S EEKIN G TO A LLOW T HE PETITION AN D\n\n ENLARGE THE PET ITIONERS ON BAIL IN SPL. (NDPS)\n\n CRIME NO.1/2011 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES\n\n PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTI ON 20( b) OF ND PS ACT .\n 2\n\n\n\n\n THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR\nORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE\nFOLLOWING:\n ORDERThis petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1\n\nunder Section 439 of TheCode of Criminal Procedure,\n\n1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for\n\nbrevity) seeking bail in Spl. (NDPS) Crime No.01/2011\n\nof (Crime No.59/2010 of Byadagi Police Station)\n\nregistered for the offence punishable underSection\n\n20(b)of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic\n\nSubstances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the\n\n'NDPS Act', for brevity).2. The petitioner/accused No.1 is facing trial\n\nfor the offences punishable underSection 20(b)of\n\nNDPS Act in Spl.(NDPS) Crime No.1/2011 pending on\n\nthe file of learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, at\n\nHaveri. This is a successive bail application. The\n\npetitioner earlier had filed Crl.P.No.100832/2020 and\n\nthe same came to be rejected by this Court by order3dated 26.08.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed bail\n\napplication before Prl. District and Sessions Judge,\n\nHaveri in Spl.(NDPS) Crime No.1/2011 and the same\n\ncame to be rejected by order dated 01.10.2020.\n\nTherefore, the petitioner/accused No.1 is before this\n\nCourt seeking bail.3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for\n\nthe petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned High\n\nCourt Government Pleader for the respondent-State.4. It is the contention of the learned counsel\n\nfor the petitioner/accused No.1 that after bail petition\n\nof the petitioner/accused No.1 came to be rejected by\n\nthis Court, there was no progress in the case and trial\n\nhas not been commenced. He would further contend\n\nthat the petitioner is diagnosed for severe anemic and\n\nthere was blood transfusion done to him and he\n\nrequires further medical treatment in private4hospitals. He would further contend that the\n\npetitioner is ready to abide by the terms and\n\nconditions imposed by this Court and is ready to face\n\nthe trial. He would further submits that even the\n\ncharge is yet to be framed. With this, he prayed to\n\nallow the petition.5. Per contra, Sri.Ravindra Naik, learned High\n\nCourt Government Pleader has contended that this\n\nCourt in earlier occasion has rejected the bail petition\n\nof accused No.1 on merits and the case involved\n\nGanja of commercial quantity. He further contended\n\nthat the petitioner has not made out new grounds for\n\ngrant of bail. Merely, because he is suffering from\n\nsome illness is not a ground to grant bail. If the\n\npetitioner is granted bail, he will abscond and not\n\navailable for trial. With this, he prayed to dismiss the\n\npetition.56. Having regard to the submission made by\n\nthe learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned\n\nHigh Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone\n\nthrough the charge sheet records and earlier orders.7. The petitioner/accused No.1 is facing trial\n\nfor the offence punishable underSection 20(b)of\n\nNDPS Act. The Ganja seized from the petitioner is\n\nmore than commercial quantity. Earlier, this Court\n\nhas rejected the petition filed by the\n\npetitioner/accused No.1 seeking bail. The petitioner is\n\nnow seeking bail on the ground that he is diagnosed\n\nas severe anemic and blood transfusion has been\n\ndone on 05.02.2021 and 06.02.2021 and he requires\n\nfurther medical treatment in private hospitals. Copy\n\nof the medical records shows that the petitioner is\n\ndiagnosed as severe anemic and blood transfusion has\n\nbeen done on 05.02.2021. The petitioner is aged 54\n\nyears and he requires attendant at the time of taking6treatment. The petitioner is in judicial custody since\n\n24.02.2020 and there is no progress in the case and\n\nas per the submission of the counsel, the case is still\n\nat the stage of framing charge. As petitioner has\n\nundertaken to appear on all dates of hearing and\n\nabide by the terms and conditions imposed by this\n\nCourt, he is entitled for grant of bail with stringent\n\nconditions. The main objection of the prosecution is\n\nthat in the event of granting bail, the\n\npetitioner/accused No.1 may likely to cause threat to\n\ncomplainant and prosecution witnesses and the same\n\nmay be set right by imposing some stringent\n\nconditions.8. In the facts and circumstances of the case\n\nand submission of the counsel, this Court is of the\n\nview that there are valid grounds for granting bail\n\nsubject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I\n\nproceed to pass the following:7ORDER\n\n The petition filed underSection 439of Cr.P.C. is\n\nallowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1\n\nshall be released on bail in Spl.(NDPS)Crime\n\nNo.01/2011(Crime No.59/2010 of Byadagi Police\n\nStation) subject to the following conditions:i) The petitioner shall execute a personal\n\n bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees\n\n one lakh only) with two sureties for the like\n\n sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional\n\n Court.ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in\n\n tampering the prosecution witnesses.iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court on all\n\n dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.8iv) The petitioner shall mark his attendance\n\n before Soundatti Police station on first\n\n Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to\n\n 5 p.m. till disposal of the case registered\n\n against him.Sd/-JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nHMB |
9bcbdcfe-a962-53b0-aba0-9417638b9149 | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nOrissa High Court\nPriyanka Jha @ Devi vs State Of Orissa on 3 October, 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK\n\n JCRLA No.49 of 2012\n\n In the matter of an Appeal under Section 383 of the Code of\n Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction\n and the order of sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed by the\n learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial\n No.49 of 2011.\n ----\n Priyanka Jha @ Devi .... Appellant\n\n -versus-\n\n State of Orissa .... Respondent\n\n Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement\n (Virtual/Physical Mode):\n\n For Appellant - Mrs.Sonita Biswal,\n B.R.Dalai & M. Das\n (Advocates)\n\n For Respondent - Mr.S.K. Nayak,\n Additional Government Advocate\n CORAM:\n MR. JUSTICE D.DASH\n MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA\n\n Date of Hearing : 25.09.2023 : Date of Judgment:03.10.2023\n\nD.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has\n\n called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of\n\n sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional\n\n Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2011 arising\n\n\n Page 1 of 11\n\n JCRLA No.49 of 2012\n -2-\n\n\n\n\nout of G.R. Case No.1975 of 2010 corresponding to Biramitrapur\n\nP.S. Case No.117 of 2010 of the Court of the learned Sub-\n\nDivisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Panposh.\n\n The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for\n\ncommitting the offence under sections 302 of the Indian Penal\n\nCode, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, she has been\n\nsentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.\n\n2. Prosecution Case:-\n\n This accused had married one Rajhesh Kumar Jha\n\n(informant-P.W.1) of Village-Patalkand under Biramitrapur\n\nPolice Station (P.S.) in the district of Sundergarh. The marriage\n\nbetween them had taken place on 20.06.2010. On 27.12.2010, it\n\nwas around 12.30 p.m., Rajesh (informant-P.W.1) came to his\n\nhouse after work for taking lunch. The accused then told Rajesh\n\n(P.W.1) that the food had not been prepared. Rajesh, therefore,\n\nasking the accused to feed his mother when the food would be\n\nready, left the house. He again returned around 2.00 p.m. Then he\n\nfound the doors of the house to have been locked from inside and\n\nthe Television was on with full sound. He then asked the accused\n\nto open the door. The doors of the house, being opened by the\n\naccused, Rajesh (P.W.1), entering therein decreased the volume of\n\nthe TV. He then went to the inner courtyard for having wash.\n\nThere he found there his mother, namely, Sita Devi with injuries\n\n Page 2 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n -3-\n\n\n\n\nin a pool of blood. Accused being immediately asked by Rajesh\n\n(P.W.1) gave evasive replies. Going closer to the place where Sita\n\nDevi was lying dead, Rajesh (P.W.1) found that slit on the wind\n\npipe of his mother and there were also marks of injuries on her\n\nface and other parts of the body.\n\n Rajesh (P.W.1) lodged a written report with the Sub-\n\nInspector (S.I.) of Police, who was then in-Charge of Inspector-in-\n\nCharge of Biramitra P.S. Receiving the said written report from\n\nP.W.1, the S.I. of Police (P.W.14), treated the same as FIR (Ext.1)\n\nand registering the case, took up investigation.\n\n3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-\n\nP.W.14) examined the Informant (P.W.1). He visited the spot and\n\nfinding people to have gathered there, he examined some of\n\nthem. The accused, being there in the house, was arrested.\n\nInquest was conducted by the I.O. (P.W.14) over the dead body of\n\nthe Sita in presence of witnesses and report to that effect (Ext.4)\n\nwas prepared. The dead body then sent for post mortem\n\nexamination. The I.O. (P.W.14) also seized some incriminating\n\narticles such as bloodstained earth, sample earth, broken bangles\n\netc. from the backyard of the house of P.W.1 under seizure list\n\n(Ext.8). He also seized the wearing apparels of the accused under\n\nseizure list (Ext.5). It was stated that on 28.12.2010, the accused,\n\nwhile in police custody, disclosed to have concealed one Paniki\n\n Page 3 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n -4-\n\n\n\n\n(vegetable cutter) and chopper underneath a chair kept in the\n\nhouse. She further stated that she would give recovery of the\n\nsame if taken to that place. The statement of the accused was\n\nrecorded under Ext.2 in presence of witnesses (P.W.2) and\n\nanother. It was said that the accused, pursuant to that statement,\n\nled the I.O. (P.W.14) and witnesses to her house and gave\n\nrecovery of the Paniki and chopper from the underneath a chair,\n\nwhich was lying there in a small room on the back side. The\n\nPaniki and chopper were seized under seizure list (Ext.3). The\n\naccused was also medically examined. The wearing apparels of\n\nthe deceased were seized on production by the police personnel,\n\nwho had accompanied the dead body for post mortem\n\nexamination. The incriminating articles were also sent for\n\nchemical examination through Court. On completion of the\n\ninvestigation, submitted the Final Form placing the accused to\n\nface the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of\n\nthe IPC.\n\n4. Learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, on receipt of the Final Form,\n\ntook cognizance of said offence and after observing the\n\nformalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is\n\nhow the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid\n\noffence against the accused.\n\n\n Page 4 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n -5-\n5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in\n\ntotal fourteen (14) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the\n\ninformant, who is the husband of the accused, had lodged the FIR\n\n(Ext.1) is P.W.1. P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 7 & 8 are the neighbors. Witnesses to\n\nthe inquest are P.Ws.4 & 6. P.Ws.9 & 11 are the witnesses to the\n\nseizure of the incriminating articles. The Doctor who had\n\nconducted the autopsy over the dead body of Sita Devi is P.W.10\n\nwhereas the Doctor, who had medically examined the accused is\n\nP.Ws.12. The I.O., at the end, has come to the witness box as\n\nP.W.14.\n\n Besides leading the evidence by examining the above\n\nwitnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents\n\nwhich have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 13.\n\nOut of those; important are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.4);\n\nand the post mortem report. The disclosure statement of the\n\naccused had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.2 and the\n\nChemical Examiner's report is Ext.13.\n\n6. The plea of the defence is that of complete denial. It was\n\nspecifically stated that she was being ignored and ill-treated by\n\nher husband (P.W.1) and on that day, her husband and mother-\n\nin-law had assaulted her and when her mother-in-law wanted to\n\nattack her by means of a knife, in the scuffle, she fell down and\n\n\n\n Page 5 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n -6-\n\n\n\n\nher left leg hit the deceased and the knife somehow stuck at her\n\nneck.\n\n7. The Trial Court, on examination of the evidence and their\n\nscrutiny, has found that the prosecution has established the\n\ncharge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.\n\n8. Mr.M.Das, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused),\n\nwithout dispute the nature of death of Sita Devi to be homicidal,\n\nsubmitted that the prosecution evidence is not enough to\n\nconclude that the chain of events are complete in every respect to\n\narrive at an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused, who is\n\nthe perpetrator of the crime by ruling out all the hypothesis other\n\nthan the guilt of the accused. He submitted that the Trial Court\n\nought not to have placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W.1 to\n\nconclude that at the relevant time, when he found the deceased\n\nlying dead in the inner court yard of the house, it was only the\n\naccused who was present in the house, which was closed form\n\ninside, which she had opened. He further submitted that such\n\nevidence of P.W.1 appears to be highly improbable when it is said\n\nthat the accused, having committed the murder, would very\n\nmuch remain present to be arrested in connection with the case.\n\nPlacing the deposition of P.W.1 and his FIR version, in view of\n\nsome variance as regards the stated previous visit by P.W.1 and\n\nthe subsequent visit, he contended that the prosecution case is\n Page 6 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n -7-\n\n\n\n\ndoubtful. He, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment of\n\nconviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal are\n\nliable to be set aside.\n\n9. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate\n\nfor the Respondent-State, submitted all in favour of the finding of\n\nguilt against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court.\n\nHe submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, being wholly reliable to\n\nthe extent that when he returned home, he found the doors of the\n\nhouse to have been bolted from inside and being called out when\n\nthe accused opened the door, soon thereafter he saw his mother\n\nlying dead in the court yard, the rest of the things as to how the\n\ndeceased sustained injuries and met her death being within the\n\nspecial knowledge of this accused since the given explanations\n\nappear to be totally false, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the\n\naccused for having committed the murder of her mother-in-law\n\nSita Devi.\n\n10. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully\n\ngone through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have\n\nalso travelled through the depositions of the witnesses examined\n\nfrom the side of the prosecution (P.Ws.1 to 14) and have perused\n\nthe documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 13.\n\n11. As has been stated by the Doctor, who had conducted the\n\nautopsy over the dead body of the deceased, he had noticed in\n Page 7 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n -8-\n\n\n\n\ntotal twelve (12) injuries on the body of the deceased and out of\n\nthose, nine (9) were cut injuries. It is his evidence that all such\n\ninjuries were ante mortem in nature. He has further stated that\n\nthe cut injuries on the neck had proved fatal and the death was\n\non account of shock as a result of blood loss due to the injury to\n\nthe major vessel like carotid. All such findings have been\n\nrecorded in his report (Ext.6). He has clearly denied that such\n\ninjuries can appear if a person would defend himself/herself in a\n\nscuffle with the weapon in the hands of the attacker. With such\n\nevidence of the Doctor (P.W.10) coupled with the evidence of the\n\nI.O. (P.W.14), who had noticed the injuries seen on the deceased\n\nin his report (Ext.4) and that of P.W.1 and others we are left with\n\nno option but to conclude that death of Sita Devi was homicidal.\n\n12. The prosecution case is not based on direct evidence. In\n\norder to bring home charge against the accused, the prosecution\n\nhas proved certain circumstances by examining P.W.1 and others.\n\n13. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, we find him to have\n\nstated that he had once come to the house during noon hours and\n\nas then the accused told him that food was not ready, he went\n\naway without taking the lunch and while going away, directed\n\nthe accused to feed his mother once the meal was ready. It is his\n\nfurther evidence that around 2.00 p.m., he returned for lunch and\n\nwhen eh arrived, he knocked at the doors vigorously when the\n Page 8 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n -9-\n\n\n\n\ntelevision set was running in full volume. He has further stated\n\nthat knocks were not responded and, therefore, he turned around\n\nthe house and by going to the backside, called his wife (accused)\n\nto open the door. It has been further stated that thereafter when\n\nhe came to front door, the accused opened the door and he\n\nimmediately went and decrees the sound of the television. It has\n\nbeen further stated by P.W.1 that when he went to the inner\n\ncourtyard to have a wash, he found his mother lying on the\n\nground in a pool of blood and then the accused being asked\n\nabout it, she remained silent and thereafter disclosed to have\n\nkilled his mother-in-law. It is also his evidence that he had seen\n\nthe wind pipe of her mother to have been completely cut. The\n\nwitness, having been cross-examined, has stated that his wife and\n\nmother (deceased), were having separate hearth and they were\n\npreparing their food separately. He has denied the suggestion\n\nthrown during cross-examination that when he and his mother\n\n(deceased) were trying to kill the accused by means of a knife and\n\nthat during scuffle, the knife somehow touched the throat of her\n\nmother in causing such injury. Although such a suggestion has\n\nbeen given, no such supporting material appears to have been\n\nelicited from the lips of P.W.1 even remotely suggestive of such\n\nhappening in the house. This P.W.1 has thereafter lodged the FIR\n\n(Ext.1). The FIR narration reveals that when this P.W.1 arrived in\n\nthe house around 2.00 p.m, he knocked the door and as nobody\n Page 9 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n - 10 -\n\n\n\n\nopened, the went towards backside and found his wife (accused)\n\nstanding on the backside door and then she opened the door\n\ngiving an entry to the accused to the house. It is also stated that\n\nthereafter he found his mother (deceased) lying therein in a pool\n\nof blood with her throat being cut and when asked the accused,\n\nshe gave evasive answer and, therefore, he apprehended that his\n\nmother had been murdered by this accused. Thus, the evidence of\n\nP.W.1 is consistent with the FIR version that when he arrived at\n\nhome, the doors were closed and finally the accused when\n\nopened the door after some time, he saw his mother (deceased)\n\nlying in a pool of blood on the backside of the house. The rest\n\npart of his evidence that the accused confessed to have committed\n\nthe murder of the deceased is, however, not stated in the FIR and,\n\ntherefore, the extra judicial confession of the accused as deposed\n\nto by P.W.1 in the Trial appears to be an introduction. Be that as it\n\nmay, the evidence of P.W.1 is acceptable on the score that at the\n\nrelevant time when he detected the dead body of his mother, the\n\naccused alone was in the house. The explanation given by the\n\naccused is that there was an attempt to his life by the accused and\n\nthe deceased and in that scuffle, the deceased has received such\n\ninjuries is not at all acceptable when the evidence of the Doctor\n\n(P.W.12) is gone through and the conduct of the accused is\n\nviewed. It has not only been stated by P.W.1 that the accused and\n\nthe deceased were not pulling on well, but the same has been the\n Page 10 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n - 11 -\n\n\n\n\n evidence of P.W.7 that the accused and her mother-in-law were\n\n not in good terms. Thus, here we find the prosecution to have\n\n established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was very\n\n much in the house when the deceased was found lying dead with\n\n cut injury on her throat and several other injuries on her body.\n\n The explanation, as has been provided by the accused, is found to\n\n be unacceptable and, therefore, basing on such evidence, we are\n\n of the view that the finding of guilt against the accused, as has\n\n been returned by the Trial Court for having murdered her\n\n mother-in-law (Sita Devi) has to sustain.\n\n 14. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of\n\n conviction and the order of sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed\n\n by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions\n\n Trial No.49 of 2011 are hereby confirmed.\n\n Since the Appellant (accused), namely, Priyanka Jha @ Devi\n\n is on bail, she is directed to surrender before the Trial Court\n\n forthwith to serve out the sentence.\n\n (D. Dash)\n Judge\n A.C.Behera, J. I Agree.\n\n (A.C.Behera)\n Judge\n\nSignatureBasu\n Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nSigned by: BASUDEV NAYAK\nReason: Authentication\nLocation: OHC\nDate: 06-Oct-2023 10:34:26\n Page 11 of 11\n JCRLA No.49 of 2012 |
3c255ab8-d2f0-5f61-b992-18d31006e113 | court_cases | Delhi District CourtNeeraj Sharma vs . Gaurav Kajla on 17 April, 2023Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,\nADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 05, (CENTRAL DISTRICT)\n TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI\n\n\nCA No.:- 28/2021\nUNIQUE CASE ID NO.:- DLCT01-005398-2020\n\n\nIN THE MATTER OF :-\nNeeraj Sharma\nS/o Sh. Devender Sharma\nR/o 48/43, Gali No. 7,\nNai Basti, Anand Parbat,\nNew Delhi-110005 .... Appellant\n\n\n VERSUS\n\n\nGaurav Kajla\nS/o Sh. Sukh Pal Singh\nR/o Building No. B-1/26,\nFlat No. SF-1, DLF,\nAnkur Vihar, Loni\nGhaziabad-201102 .... Respondent\n\n\n\nDate of institution of the appeal : 04/09/2020\nDate on which judgment was reserved : 12/04/2023\nDate of judgment : 17/04/2023\n\n\n Digitally signed\n by VIJAY\n VIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:\n 2023.04.17\n 17:16:51 +0700\n\n\nCA No. 28/2021 Page No.1/35\n Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n JUDGMENT1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall\n\nconscientiously adjudicate upon criminal appeal undersection 374(3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as\n\n"Cr.P.C.") filed by the appellant against the judgment dated\n\n26/06/2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned judgment' ) and order\n\non sentence dated 05/08/2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned\n\norder') passed by Ms. Tista Shah, Ld. MM-06 (N.I. Act), Central\n\nDistrict, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Complaint No.\n\n514074/2016 underSection 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act,\n\n1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I. Act") titled as "Gaurav Kajla Vs.\n\nNeeraj Sharma".In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed to call the\n\nrecord of the Ld. Trial Court and to set aside the impugned judgment\n\ndated 26/06/2020 and order on sentence dated 05/08/2020 passed by\n\nthe Ld. Trial Court.2. Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the\n\njudgment dated 26/06/2020 and order on sentence dated 05/08/2020\n\npassed by the Ld. Trial Court. Vide judgment dated 26/06/2020, theDigitally signedby VIJAYSHANKARVIJAY Date:SHANKAR 2023.04.17\n 17:17:00\n +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.2/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nappellant/accused was convicted by the Ld. Trial Court for the offence\n\nu/s. 138N.I. Act. Vide order on sentence dated 05/08/2020, the\n\nappellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the\n\nperiod of three months and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,70,000/-\n\n(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Only) to be paid to the\n\ncomplainant as compensation and in default, to undergo simple\n\nimprisonment for the period of two months.3. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present\n\nappeal as stated in the present appeal are that the complainant\n\n(respondent herein) had filed the complaint caseu/s. 138N.I. Act\n\nagainst the accused (appellant herein). The appellant has not filed any\n\nsimilar appeal/ petition before this Court or any other Court of law or\n\nForum. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant within\n\nprescribed period.4. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment\n\nand order on sentence on the grounds, as mentioned in the present\n\nappeal.Grounds of appeal- Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order\n\non the basis of surmises and conjectures, ignoring the material factsDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:17:08 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.3/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nand circumstances of the case. It is settled law that before passing\n\njudgment and order, the Ld. Trial Court should have consider all the\n\nfacts and circumstances of the case. It is also well settled law that\n\npresumptions can be rebutted by raising presumptions of facts and law\n\non the basis of material available on record. It is also settled law that\n\nthe standard required from the accused to prove his defence is\n\npreponderance of probabilities and accused need not prove his defence\n\nbeyond reasonable doubts. In the present matter, the appellant has\n\ntaken the defence that he knew the complainant through one Sanjay\n\nGoswami and he came into contact with him while he was mediator in\n\nsale and purchase of Maruti Swift Desire bearing No.DL-13CB-1616\n\nbetween Sh.Ram Chandra and brother of the respondent namely\n\nSanjeev Kajla. At the time of entering into a dealing regarding the car,\n\nrespondent and his brother raised question that the eight to nine\n\ninstallments of the car are yet to be paid and therefore sought some\n\nassurance for payment of installments, for assuring the respondent, the\n\naccused handed over a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- so that the deal may be\n\nmatured. The respondent had misused the cheque after clearing the\n\ndues. During the cross-examination, the respondent had admitted that\n\nhis brother is Sanjeev Kajla but he refused that they have car bearing\n\nNo.DL-13CB-1616. However, during the trial, the appellant requestedDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:17:26 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.4/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nthe Ld. Trial Court to summon the witness from the Maruti Service\n\nCentre for proving his defence. According to the record of the Maruti\n\nService Centre, the respondent's brother was the owner of the said\n\nvehicle since year 2013, even prior to the presentation of the cheque\n\nand he continued to brought the vehicle to the Service Centre till May,\n\n2015, when the defence was taken by the appellant before the Ld.\n\nTrial Court. The same shows that the cheque was misused by the\n\nrespondent. The Ld. Trial Court has not even gone through the\n\ncontents of the complaint, cross-examination and defence of the case.As per the allegation of the complaint, the respondent gave a loan of\n\nRs.1,00,000/- to the appellant as there was family relationship\n\nbetween the appellant and respondent, however, during the cross-examination, the respondent could not able to disclose anything about\n\nthe family, address and other things regarding the appellant. The\n\nrespondent has stated that he came in contact with the appellant\n\nthrough Sh. Sanjay Goswami, however, the alleged loan was not given\n\nin his presence or even Sanjay Goswami has any knowledge about\n\nsuch loan. The Ld. Trial Court has not considered that during the\n\ncross-examination, the respondent stated that he used to maintain an\n\naccount of money advanced by him, however, he had not placed on\n\nrecord such account before the Ld. Trial Court. Even, the respondentDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:17:35 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.5/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nhad not mentioned the loan amount in his ITR. The respondent had\n\nconcealed the fact regarding his soundness to extend loan and he\n\nrefused to provide his bank details. Ld. Trial Court had ignored the\n\nmaterial fact that the respondent had not mentioned anything\n\nregarding the urgency of the appellant, though, a specific defence was\n\ntaken by the respondent that the loan was taken by the appellant for\n\npurchasing E-rickshaw. However, the said defence never taken by the\n\nrespondent even in his notice, complaint and evidence by way of\n\naffidavit. The Ld. Trial Court had ignored the law laid down by the\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts. The Ld. Trial Court\n\nhad failed to consider the ingredients ofsection 138N.I. Act. The\n\nrespondent had failed to prove that the legal notice was ever served\n\nupon the respondent. The respondent had also failed to prove that\n\nthere was any legally recoverable debts towards the appellant. The\n\nLd. Trial Court had ignored all material facts, hence, the judgment and\n\nfindings of the Ld. Trial Court are erroneous and liable to be set aside.Apart from the aforesaid grounds, the counsel for the\n\nappellant has raised some additional grounds of appeal during the\n\ncourse of arguments. The additional grounds of appeal shall be\n\ndiscussed later on.Digitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:17:53 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.6/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here\n\nthe proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.(i) The complainant Gaurav Kajla had filed the complaint\n\nu/s. 138N.I. Actagainst the accused Neeraj Sharma before the Ld.\n\nTrial Court.It is mentioned in the complaintu/s. 138N.I. Act that for\n\nthe last 2-3 years, the accused had developed friendship with\n\ncomplainant. In the second week of May, 2014, accused had\n\napproached and requested the complainant for giving him a friendly\n\nloan of Rs.1,50,000/- as he was in dire need of money. The\n\ncomplainant keeping in view the friendly relations and need of the\n\naccused, advanced a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused. The accused\n\nacknowledged and confirmed the loan and in discharge of his legal\n\nliability, the accused gave a post dated cheque bearing No.000096\n\ndated 17/07/2014 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Kotak\n\nMahindra Bank, Ground Floor, 16/10, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,\n\nNew Delhi-110005 in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was\n\nissued with an assurance that same is good for payment and would be\n\nhonoured upon its presentation. The abovesaid cheque was presented\n\nby the complainant to his banker and the said cheque was dishonouredDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:18:03 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.7/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nwith the remarks "Funds Insufficient". The complainant apprised the\n\naccused regarding the same but the accused lingering on the payment\n\nof said amount on one pretext or another. Thereafter, the complainant\n\nhad sent a legal notice dated 01/08/2014 through his counsel to the\n\naccused through Regd. AD/ Speed Post demanding the amount of the\n\nsaid cheque due from the accused. The legal notice was duly served\n\nupon the accused but neither reply to the legal notice was given nor\n\ncheque amount was paid.(ii) Thereafter, the complainant had led his pre-summoning\n\nevidence by filing his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he\n\nreiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the complaintu/s. 138N.I.\n\nAct.(iii) Vide order dated 05/09/2014 passed by the Ld. Trial\n\nCourt, cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was\n\nsummoned.(iv) Finding a prima-facie case against the accused, notice\n\nu/s. 251Cr.P.C. for the offenceu/s. 138N.I. Act was given to him to\n\nwhich he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Vide order dated 13/01/2015, applicationu/s. 145 (2)N.I. Act of the accused was allowed.(v) Complainant in support of his case and in post-Digitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:18:13 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.8/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nsummoning evidence had examined himself as CW-1 and witness\n\nSh. Anil Handa, Public Relation Inspector (Postal), Civil Lines PO,\n\nNew Delhi-110054. Complainant had adopted his pre-summoning\n\nevidence as post-summoning evidence also. CW-1 was cross-\n\nexamined by counsel for the accused.CW-1 in his testimony had relied upon cheque bearing\n\nNo. 000096 dated 17/07/2014 Ex.CW1/A, returning memo\n\ndated 19/07/2014 Ex.CW1/B, legal notice dated 01/08/2014\n\nEx.CW1/C, postal receipts Ex.CW1/D and delivery/ tracking report\n\nEx.CW1/E.(vi) Separate statement of the accused was recordedu/s. 313/281Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the allegations against him and rebutted\n\nthe complainant evidence against him. It was stated by the accused in\n\nhis statement that the cheque in question belongs to him and it was\n\ngiven by him to Mr. Sanjay Goswami and he is the proprietor of AAR\n\nANN Group and he knew the complainant through Mr. Sanjay\n\nGoswami and he never taken any loan from the complainant and\n\ncheque in question was given by him to Mr. Sanjay Goswami in June,\n\n2013 for security purpose. It was further stated by the accused that he\n\nhad no financial transactions with the complainant. It was further\n\nstated by the accused that he does not remember as to whether he hadDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:18:23 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.9/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nreceived the legal demand notice Ex.CW-1/C or not. It was further\n\nstated by the accused that he wants to lead defence evidence.(vii) The accused had led defence evidence and got examined\n\nhimself as DW-1 and Sh. O. P. Kathuria, G.M. Admin. Magic Auto\n\nPvt. Ltd as DW-2. DW-1 and DW-2 were cross-examined by counsel\n\nfor the complainant.Accused had relied upon the agreement Ex.CW-1/D-1\n\nand service record of the vehicle bearing No.DL-13CB-1616\n\nEx.DW-2/A.(viii) Thereafter, final arguments were heard by the Ld. Trial\n\nCourt. Vide judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court, accused was\n\nconvicted for the offenceu/s. 138N.I. Act and order on sentence was\n\npassed by the Ld. Trial Court.6. This Court already heard the arguments on the present\n\nappeal advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the material\n\navailable on record.During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld.\n\nCounsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and order on\n\nsentence are liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the\n\npresent appeal. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. CounselDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:18:32 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.10/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nfor the respondent that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned\n\njudgment and order on sentence in accordance with law and there is\n\nno merits in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.The counsel for the appellant in support of his\n\ncontentions has relied upon the following case laws:-(a) Maheshwar Tigga Vs. The State of Jharkhand\n\n {Criminal Appeal No. 635/2020 decided on\n\n 28/09/2020 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India}(b) M. S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala\n\n & Anr. {Criminal Appeal No. 1012/1999 decided on\n\n 04/07/2006 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India}(c) Chander Kanta & Anr. Vs. M/s. Anand Agro\n\n Industries & Ors. {CRA-AS. 30/2015 decided on\n\n 20/11/2017 by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High\n\n Court}(d) Vijay Vs. Laxman & Anr. {Criminal Appeal No.\n\n 261/2013 decided on 07/02/2013 by Hon'ble\n\n Supreme Court of India}(e) Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde\n\n {Criminal Appeal No.518/2006 decided on\n\n 11/01/2008 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India}Digitally signedby VIJAY\n VIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date: 2023.04.17\n 17:18:42 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.11/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla(f) Rajendraprasad Vs. Santosh Kumar Parasmal\n\n { decided on 04/03/2008 by Hon'ble Bombay High\n\n Court}(g) Vinay Parulekar Vs. Pramod Meshram{ 2008 (2)\n\n MHLJ 115}(h) Anil Raj Vs. Integrated Finance Co. Ltd.{ 2006 (1)\n\n ALD Cri. 36}(i) K. O. Chacko Vs. Kurian P. V. & Ors. { III(2007) BC\n\n 243}\n\n\n\n The counsel for the respondent in support of his\n\ncontentions has relied upon the case law titled as "Prakash Jewellers\n\nVs. A. K. Jewellers{ 2002 (99) DLT 244}.7. For the sake of ready reference,section 138N.I. Act is\nreproduced as under:-Section 138-Dishonour of cheque for\n insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account -\n Where any cheque drawn by a person on an\n account maintained by him with a banker for\n payment of any amount of money to another\n person from out of that account for the\n discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or\n other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid,\n either because of the amount of money standing\n to the credit of that account is insufficient toDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:18:51 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.12/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount\n arranged to be paid from that account by an\n agreement made with that bank, such person\n shall be deemed to have committed an offence\n and shall, without prejudice to any other\n provision of this Act, be punished with\n imprisonment for a term which may extended to\n two years, or with fine which may extend to\n twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:\n Provided that nothing contained in this section\n shall apply unless-(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank\n within a period of six months from the date on\n which it is drawn or within the period of its\n validity, whichever is earlier.(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the\n cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for\n the payment of the said amount of money by\n giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the\n cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of\n information by him from the bank regarding the\n return of the cheque as unpaid; and(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the\n payment of the said amount of money to the\n payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in\n due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of\n the receipt of the said notice.Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,\n `debt or other liability' means a legally\n enforceable debt or other liability.Ingredients ofSection 138N.I. Act have been specified\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Gimpex\nPrivate Limited Vs. Manoj Goel", {(2021) SCC Online SC 925} as\nunder:-"The ingredients of the offence underSection 138Digitally signedby VIJAYSHANKARVIJAY Date:SHANKAR 2023.04.17\n 17:19:00\n +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.13/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n are:(i) The drawing of a cheque by person on an account\n maintained by him with the banker for the payment of\n any amount of money to another from that account;(ii) The cheque being drawn for the discharge in\n whole or in part of any debt or other liability;(iii) Presentation of the cheque to the bank;(iv) The return of the cheque by the drawee bank as\n unpaid either because the amount of money standing\n to the credit of that account is insufficient to PART C\n honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount\n arranged to be paid from that account;(v) A notice by the payee or the holder in due course\n making a demand for the payment of the amount to\n the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt\n of information from the bank in regard to the return of\n the cheque; and(vi) The drawer of the cheque failing to make\n payment of the amount of money to the payee or the\n holder in due course within 15 days of the receipt of\n the notice".8. The object ofN.I. Acthas been elaborated by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as M/s Dalmia Cement\n(Bharat) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd., (2001(1)\nR.C.R. (Criminal) 646) and it was held that :-"The Actwas enacted andSection 138thereof\n incorporated with a specified object of making a\n special provision by incorporating a strict liability so\n far as the cheque, a negotiable instrument, is\n concerned. The law relating to negotiable instrument\n is the law of commercial world legislated to facilitate\n the activities in trade and commerce making\n provision of giving sanctity to the instruments of\n credit which could be deemed to be convertible into\n money and easily passable from one person toDigitally signedby VIJAYSHANKARVIJAY Date:SHANKAR 2023.04.17\n 17:19:10\n +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.14/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n another. In the absence of such instruments,including a cheque, the trade and commerce\n activities, in the present-day world, are likely to be\n adversely affected as it is impracticable for the\n trading community to carry on with it the bulk of the\n currency in force. The negotiable instruments are in\n fact the instruments of credit being convertible on\n account of legality of being negotiated and are easily\n passable from one hand to another. To achieve the\n objectives of the Act, the legislature has, in its\n wisdom, thought it proper to make such provisions in\n the Act, for conferring such privileges to the\n mercantile instruments contemplated under it and\n provide special penalties and procedure in case the\n obligations under the instruments are not discharged.\n The laws relating to the Act are, therefore, required to\n be interpreted in the light of the objects intended to be\n achieved by it despite there being deviations from the\n general law and the procedure provided for the\n redressal of the grievances to the litigants. Efforts to\n defeat the objectives of law by resorting to innovative\n measures and methods are to be discouraged, lest it\n may affect the commercial and mercantile activities in\n a smooth and healthy manner, ultimately affecting the\n economy of the country".It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case\n\ntitled as "M/sLaxmi Dyechem Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.",\n\n{(2012) 13 SCC 375} that :-"Chapter XVII comprisingSections 138to142of the\n Negotiable Instruments Act was introduced in the\n statute by Act 66 of 1988. The object underlying the\n provision contained in the said Chapter was aimed at\n inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operations\n and giving credibility to negotiable instruments in\n business and day to day transactions by making\n dishonour of such instruments an offence. ADigitally signedby VIJAYSHANKARVIJAY Date:SHANKAR 2023.04.17\n 17:19:33\n +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.15/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n negotiable instrument whether the same is in the form\n of a promissory note or a cheque is by its very nature\n a solemn document that carries with it not only a\n representation to the holder in due course of any such\n instrument but also a promise that the same shall be\n honoured for payment. To that endSection 139of the\n Act raises a statutory presumption that the cheque is\n issued in discharge of a lawfully recoverable debt or\n other liability. This presumption is no doubt\n rebuttable at trial but there is no gainsaying that the\n same favours the complainant and shifts the burden to\n the drawer of the instrument (in case the same is\n dishonoured) to prove that the instrument was without\n any lawful consideration. It is also noteworthy thatSection 138while making dishonour of a cheque an\n offence punishable with imprisonment and fine also\n provides for safeguards to protect drawers of such\n instruments where dishonour may take place for\n reasons other than those arising out of dishonest\n intentions. It envisages service of a notice upon the\n drawer of the instrument calling upon him to make\n the payment covered by the cheque and permits\n prosecution only after the expiry of the statutory\n period and upon failure of the drawer to make the\n payment within the said period.".9. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss the\n\nother relevant provisions ofN.I. Act.Section 6N.I. Act has prescribed the definition of\n\ncheque and cheque is Negotiable Instrument within the meaning ofsection 13of the Act.Section 30N.I. Act talks about the liability of\n\nthe drawer.Section 20N.I. Act talks about inchoate stampedDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:19:45 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.16/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\ninstruments.Section 87talks about effect of material alteration of a\n\nNegotiable Instrument.Section 118N.I. Act talks about presumptions as to\n\nnegotiable instruments of consideration, date, time of acceptance, time\n\nof transfer, order of endorsement, stamps and holder in due course.Section 139N.I. Act deals with presumption of law in\n\nfavour of holder of a cheque. It provides that unless the contrary is\n\nproved, it shall be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the\n\ncheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other\n\nliability. It is a rebuttable presumption of law and the burden of\n\nproving that a cheque has not been issued for a debt or liability is on\n\nthe accused.10. Vide impugned judgment dated 26/06/2020, the Ld. Trial\n\nCourt convicted the appellant/ accused for the offenceu/s. 138N.I.\n\nAct on the grounds that:-(a) The accused has admitted that the cheque was issued by\n\n him after signing the same.(b) The cheque was issued by the accused for the discharge\n\n of a legally recoverable debt or liability.(c) The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds inDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:20:10 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.17/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n the account of the accused.(d) The legal/ demand notice was duly served upon the\n\n accused.(e) Despite service of legal notice, the accused had failed to\n\n make the payment to the complainant.(f) The accused has failed to rebut the presumption taken in\n\n favour of the complainant.(g) The complainant has successfully proved all essential\n\n ingredients ofSection 138N.I. Act.11. CONTENTIONS(a). It is the contention of the appellant that the cheque was\n\nissued and signed by him but rest of the particulars have been filled by\n\nsomeone else.Section 20N.I. Act talks about inchoate stamped\n\ninstruments.Section 20N.I. Act provides that where a person delivers\n\na signed but a wholly blank or written incomplete negotiable\n\ninstrument, he is deemed to have given prima-facie authority to the\n\nholder to fill-up the particulars in it or complete it and this makes him\n\nliable for the amount mentioned therein, in the capacity in which heDigitally signedby VIJAYSHANKARVIJAY Date:SHANKAR 2023.04.17\n 17:20:20\n +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.18/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nsigned the same, to any holder in due course of such amount. Thus,\n\nblank or incomplete written but signed cheque and filled-up by any\n\nother person is a valid negotiable instrument and prosecution underSection 138N.I. Act can be initiated on the basis of such a cheque.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case\n\ntitled as "Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar", {(2019) 4 SCC 197} that:-"A meaningful reading of the provisions of theNegotiable Instruments Actincluding, in particular,Sections 20,87and139, makes it amply clear that a\n person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the\n payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to\n rebut the presumption that the cheque had been\n issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a\n liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have\n been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if\n the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque\n is otherwise valid, the penal provisions ofSection 138would be attracted.If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented\n to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill\n up the amount and other particulars. This in itself\n would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still\n be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in\n discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.It is not the case of the respondent-accused that\n he either signed the cheque or parted with it under\n any threat or coercion. Nor is it the case of the\n respondent-accused that the unfilled signed cheque\n had been stolen. The existence of a fiduciary\n relationship between the payee of a cheque and its\n drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of\n the presumption underSection 139of the Negotiable\n Instruments Act, in the absence of evidence of\n exercise of undue influence or coercion. The second\n question is also answered in the negative.Digitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:20:28 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.19/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed\n and handed over by the accused, which is towards\n some payment, would attract presumption underSection 139of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the\n absence of any cogent evidence to show that the\n cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.The fact that the appellant-complainant might\n have been an Income Tax practitioner conversant\n with knowledge of law does not make any difference\n to the law relating to the dishonour of a cheque. The\n fact that the loan may not have been advanced by a\n cheque or demand draft or a receipt might not have\n been obtained would make no difference. In this\n context, it would, perhaps, not be out of context to\n note that the fact that the respondent-accused should\n have given or signed blank cheque to the appellant-\n complainant, as claimed by the respondent-accused,\n shows that initially there was mutual trust and faith\n between them.In the absence of any finding that the cheque in\n question was not signed by the respondent-accused or\n not voluntarily made over to the payee and in the\n absence of any evidence with regard to the\n circumstances in which a blank signed cheque had\n been given to the appellant-complainant, it may\n reasonably be presumed that the cheque was filled in\n by the appellant-complainant being the payee in the\n presence of the respondent-accused being the\n drawer,at his request and/or with his acquiescence.\n The subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque\n is not an alteration. There was no change in the\n amount of the cheque, its date or the name of the\n payee. The High Court ought not to have acquitted\n the respondent-accused of the charge underSection\n 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act.In our considered opinion, the High Court\n patently erred in holding that the burden was on the\n appellant-complainant to prove that he had advanced\n the loan and the blank signed cheque was given to\n him in repayment of the same. The finding of the High\n Court that the case of the appellant-complainantDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:21:09 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.20/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n became highly doubtful or not beyond reasonable\n doubt is patently erroneous for the reasons discussed\n above."It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled\nas "Kalamani Tex & Another Vs. P. Balasubramanian", {(2021) 5\nSCC 283} that :-"........The Statute mandates that once the\n signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable\n instrument are established, then these reverse onus\n clauses become operative. In such a situation, the\n obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the\n presumption imposed upon him.......".The appellant/ accused at the time of framing noticeu/s.\n\n251Cr.P.C. stated that the cheque was issued and signed by him but\n\nrest of the particulars were filled by some else and the cheque was\n\ngiven by him at the residence of the complainant to the complainant\n\nhimself. Issuance of the cheque by the appellant/ accused is not\n\ndisputed. The appellant has also not disputed his signature on the\n\ncheque Ex.CW1/A. In view of the lawlaid down inBir Singhcase\n\n(Supra), it is clear that that a person who signs a cheque and makes it\n\nover to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the\n\npresumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or\n\nin discharge of a liability. The appellant/ accused had failed to adduce\n\nany specific evidence to rebut the presumption in this regard. In viewDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:21:31 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.21/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nof the same, the contention of the appellant in this regard is not tenable.(b) It is the contention of the appellant that the cheque was\n\ngiven by him to one Sh. Sanjay Goswami at his office and the cheque\n\nwas given by him as security for one Sh. Ram Chander. It is also the\n\ncontention of the appellant that the appellant knew the complainant\n\nthrough one Sanjay Goswami and he came into contact with him while\n\nhe was mediator in sale and purchase of Maruti Swift Desire bearing\n\nNo.DL-13CB-1616 between Sh. Ram Chandra and brother of the\n\nrespondent namely Sanjeev Kajla and at the time of entering into a\n\ndealing regarding the car, respondent and his brother raised question\n\nthat the eight to nine installments of the car are yet to be paid and\n\ntherefore sought some assurance for payment of installments, for\n\nassuring the respondent, the accused handed over a cheque of\n\nRs.1,00,000/- so that the deal may be matured. It is also the contention\n\nof the appellant that the respondent had misused the cheque after\n\nclearing the dues and during the cross-examination, the respondent had\n\nadmitted that his brother is Sanjeev Kajla but he refused that they have\n\ncar bearing No.DL-13CB-1616.The appellant/accused had not examined Sh. Sanjay\n\nGoswami, Sh. Ram Chander and Sh. Sanjeev Kajla before the Ld. TrialDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:21:43 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.22/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nCourt in support of his contentions. The appellant/accused had failed to\n\nprove the relevancy of the transaction of the aforesaid vehicle/car.\n\nAppellant/accused had also failed to prove the fact that the cheque was\n\ngiven for security purpose. In view of the same, the contention of the\n\nappellant in this regard is not tenable.(c) It is the contention of the appellant/ accused that he had\n\nnot received the demand/legal notice from the complainant.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case\n\ntitled as "C. C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Another",\n\n{ 2007) 6 SCC 555} that:-"........It is, thus, trite to say that where the payee\n dispatches the notice by registered post with correct\n address of the drawer of the cheque, the principle\n incorporated inSection 27of the G.C. Act would be\n attracted; the requirement of Clause (b) of proviso toSection 138of the Act stands complied with.........\n\n ...........In our opinion, therefore, when the notice is\n sent by registered post by correctly addressing the\n drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of\n issue of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso toSection 138of the Act stands complied with..........."The appellant/accused at the time of framing noticeu/s.\n\n251Cr.P.C. stated that he had not received legal demand notice fromDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:21:53 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.23/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nthe complainant, however, he resides at the address mentioned in the\n\nlegal notice. The appellant/ accused in his statementu/s. 313/281Cr.P.C. stated that he does not remember whether he had received the\n\nlegal demand notice Ex.CW1/C or not.Section 27of General Clauses\n\nAct deals with the presumption of service of notice sent by post and\n\nprovides that service of such notice shall be deemed to have been\n\naffected unless the contrary is proved. It is admitted fact that the\n\nappellant/ accused was residing at the address as mentioned in the legal\n\ndemand notice Ex.CW1/C. Ex.CW1/D are the postal receipts and\n\nEx.CW1/E is the tracking report. In Ex.CW-1/E legal notice is shown\n\nto be delivered to appellant Neeraj Sharma on 04/08/2014. The\n\nappellant/ accused in support of his contention had not led any\n\nevidence to show that the legal notice Ex.CW1/C was not served upon\n\nhim.During the course of cross-examination of complainant/CW-1,\n\ncounsel for the accused had not put any question to CW-1 to dispute the\n\nauthenticity of Ex. CW-1/D and Ex. CW-1/E. On the other hand, the\n\ncomplainant had proved on record Ex.CW1/C, Ex.CW1/D and\n\nEx.CW1/E. In view of the law laid down inC. C. Alavi Hajicase\n\n(supra), the contention of the appellant in this regard is not tenable.(d) It is the contention of the appellant that the complainantDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:22:00 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.24/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nhad not led any evidence regarding his financial capacity and\n\nsoundness to extend loan.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case\ntitled as " Rohit Bhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat &\nAnother", {(2019) 18 SCC 106} that:-"In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing\n the presumption underSection 139of the NI Act, the\n Trial Court proceeded to question the want of\n evidence on the part of the complainant as regards\n the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused\n and want of examination of relevant witnesses who\n allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the\n accused. This approach of the Trial Court had been at\n variance with the principles of presumption in law.\n After such presumption, the onus shifted to the\n accused and unless the accused had discharged the\n onus by bringing on record such facts and\n circumstances as to show the preponderance of\n probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the\n complainant's case could not have been raised for\n want of evidence regarding the source of funds for\n advancing loan to the accused-appellant. The aspect\n relevant for consideration had been as to whether the\n accused-appellant has brought on record such\n facts/material/circumstances which could be of a\n reasonably probable defence."It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case\ntitled as "Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayan Dass Mahant", {(2022) SCC\nOnline SC 302} that:-"The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have\n noted that in the case underSection 138of the N. I.\n Act the complainant need not show in the firstDigitally signedby VIJAY\n VIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date: 2023.04.17\n 17:22:09 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.25/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings\n underSection 138of the N. I. Act is not a civil suit. At\n the time, when the complainant gives his evidence,\n unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the\n statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not\n have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the\n complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he\n had the financial capacity. To that extent the Courts\n in our view were right in holding on those lines......."Hence, financial capacity was not required to be proved\n\nby the complainant. In view of the law laid down in Rohit Bhai\n\nJivanlal Patel and Tedhi Singh cases (Supra), the contention of the\n\nappellant is not tenable in this regard.(e) It is the contention of the appellant that the complainant\n\nhad not mentioned the loan amount in his ITR and same shows that no\n\nloan was ever extended to the appellant.It is well settled law that merely because the loan amount\n\nis not shown in the Income Tax Return, in every case, one cannot jump\n\nto the conclusion that the presumptionu/s. 139N.I. Act stands rebutted.\n\nFailure to show the loan amount in Income Tax Return cannot always\n\nsaid to be fatal to the case.It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as\n\n"Lekh Raj Sharma Vs. Yash Pal Gupta.", {Crl. LP 567/2014Digitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:22:17 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.26/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\ndecided on 30/06/2015 } that:-"The finding that, as the amount of loan disbursed to\n the respondent was not shown in the balance sheet\n and ITR, the appellant could not be said to have\n proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, is also\n erroneous......"It was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case titled\n\nas "Krishna P. Morajkar Vs. Joe Ferrao & Anr.", {2013 ALL MR\n\n(Cri) 4129} that:-".......The entire scheme of theIncome Tax Actis for\n ensuring that all amounts are accounted for. If some\n amounts are not accounted for, the person would be\n visited with the penalty or at times even prosecution\n under theIncome Tax Act, but it does not mean that\n the borrower can refuse to pay the amount which he\n has borrowed simply, because there is some infraction\n of the provisions of theIncome Tax Act. Infraction of\n provisions ofIncome Tax Actwould be a matter\n between the revenue and the defaulter and advantage\n thereof cannot be taken by the borrower. ......."Non-mentioning of the loan amount in the ITR may entail\n\nconsequences underIncome Tax Actbut it does not mean that the\n\nborrower can refuse to pay the amount which he has borrowed simply,\n\nbecause there are some fractions in provisions of theIncome Tax Act.\n\nThe appellant cannot escape from his legal liability to pay the loan\n\namount only on the ground that the complainant had not mentioned the\n\nloan amount in his ITR. In view of the law laid down in Leh RajDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:22:48 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.27/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nSharma and Krishna P. Morajkar cases (Supra), the contention of the\n\nappellant in this regard is not tenable.(f) It is the contention of the appellant that all the specific\n\nallegations have not been put to the accused in his statementu/s. 313/281Cr.P.C. On perusal of statementu/s. 313/281Cr.P.C., it is revealed\n\nthat all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and the\n\naccused replied the same and it was also stated that he wants to lead\n\ndefence evidence. In view of the same, the contention of the appellant\n\nin this regard is not tenable.(g) It is the contention of the appellant that appellant was not\n\ngiven opportunity to cross-examine CW-2. On perusal of testimony of\n\nCW-2, it is revealed that the aforesaid witness was the witness of the\n\nrecord. CW-2 was summoned by the complainant in respect of the\n\nrecord of speed post. CW-2 in his testimony had deposed that the\n\nrecord was weeded out and delivery report with respect to speed post is\n\navailable on internet. On perusal of order-sheet dated 20/11/2015, it is\n\nrevealed that the accused and his counsel were present at the time of\n\nexamination of CW-2. No doubt the opportunity to cross-examine\n\nCW-2 was to be given to the accused. But the accused and his counselDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:22:56 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.28/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nhad also not asked for the cross-examination of CW-2. Even, the\n\naccused had also not filed any application before the Ld. Trial Court for\n\nrecalling of CW-2. Even otherwise, the complainant/CW-1 in his\n\ntestimony had duly proved on record postal receipts Ex. CW-1/D and\n\ntracking report Ex. CW-1/E. In the cross-examination of\n\ncomplainant/CW-1, the counsel for the accused had not put any\n\nquestion regarding authenticity of Ex. CW-1/D and Ex. CW-1/E. In\n\nview of the same, the contention of the appellant in this regard is not\n\ntenable.(h) It is the contention of the appellant that the Ld. Trial\n\nCourt had ignored the material fact that the respondent/complainant\n\nhad not mentioned anything regarding the urgency of the\n\nappellant/accused for taking loan. The aforesaid contention of the\n\nappellant is not tenable in view of the fact that issuance of cheque and\n\nhanding over the same to the complainant is admitted by the\n\nappellant/accused.(i) It is also the contention of the appellant that as per\n\ncomplainant, the complainant had given a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the\n\nappellant as there was family relationship between the appellant and theDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:23:04 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.29/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nrespondent but the complainant in his cross-examination could not able\n\nto disclose anything about the family, address and other things of the\n\nappellant. The complainant in his complaint and testimony nowhere\n\nstated that he was having family relationship with the appellant/\n\naccused. In view of the same, the contention of the appellant in this\n\nregard is not tenable.(j) It is the contention of the appellant that in view of the\n\ngrounds mentioned in the present appeal, the appellant/accused had\n\nbeen successful to rebut the presumptionu/s. 118and139N.I. Act.It is well settled law that the presumptionsu/s. 118and139of the N.I. Act are rebuttable and burden is on the accused to rebut\n\nthe presumption which can be discharged by the accused by\n\npreponderance of probabilities. It is well settled law that presumptions\n\nu/s. 118 and 139 of theN.I. Acthave to be rebutted by cogent evidence\n\nand mere plausible explanation is not enough.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case\n\ntitled as "Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets", {(2009) 2 SCC\n\n513} that:-" The accused in a trial underSection 138of the Act\n has two options. He can either show thatDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:23:15 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.30/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n consideration and debt did not exist or that under the\n particular circumstances of the case the non-existence\n of consideration and debt is so probable that a\n prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration\n and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions\n an accused is not expected to prove his defence\n beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the\n complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may\n adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in\n question was not supported by consideration and that\n there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him.\n However, the court need not insist in every case that\n the accused should disprove the non- existence of\n consideration and debt by leading direct evidence\n because the existence of negative evidence is neither\n possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is\n clear that bare denial of the passing of the\n consideration and existence of debt, apparently would\n not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which\n is probable has to be brought on record for getting the\n burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To\n disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring\n on record such facts and circumstances, upon\n consideration of which, the court may either believe\n that the consideration and debt did not exist or their\n non-existence was so probable that a prudent man\n would under the circumstances of the case, act upon\n the plea that they did not exist.........."It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as\n\n"Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan", {(2010) 11 SCC 441} that:-"Section 139of the Act is an example of a reverse\n onus clause that has been included in furtherance of\n the legislative objective of improving the credibility of\n negotiable instruments. WhileSection 138of the Act\n specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the\n dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption\n underSection 139is a device to prevent undue delay\n in the course of litigation. However, it must beDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:23:25 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.31/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n remembered that the offence made punishable bySection 138can be better described as a regulatory\n offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in\n the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually\n confined to the private parties involved in commercial\n transactions. In such a scenario, the test of\n proportionality should guide the construction and\n interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the\n accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge\n an unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of\n compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses\n usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a\n persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled\n position that when an accused has to rebut the\n presumption underSection 139, the standard of proof\n for doing so is that of `preponderance of\n probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to\n raise a probable defence which creates doubts about\n the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability,\n the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations,\n the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the\n complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is\n conceivable that in some cases the accused may not\n need to adduce evidence of his/her own."In view of the aforesaid discussion in preceding paras, it\n\nis clear that the appellant/accused had failed to rebut the presumption\n\nu/s. 118 and 139N.I. Act. The appellant/ accused had failed to raise any\n\nprobable defence. In view of the same, the contention of the appellant\n\nin this regard is not tenable.12. It is well settled law that the Appellate Court will usuallyDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:23:34 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.32/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\nnot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court and the\n\nAppellate Court will interfere only if it is found that the discretion has\n\nbeen exercised arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. The first\n\nAppellate Court is required to examine the case of the appellant with\n\nreference to the grounds urged in the appeal.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case\n\ntitled as "Rajan Vs. State of MP", {(1999) 6 SCC 29} that:-"Appellate Court's jurisdiction is co-extensive with\n that of the trial Court in the matter of assessment,\n appraisal and appreciation of the evidence and also\n to determine the disputed issues.".13. The complainant in his complaint and in his testimony\n\nhad categorically, elaborately and graphically described as to how\n\noffenceu/s 138N.I. Act had been committed by the appellant/accused.\n\nThe complainant/CW-1 had duly proved on record cheque bearing No.\n\n000096 dated 17/07/2014 Ex.CW1/A, returning memo dated\n\n19/07/2014 Ex.CW1/B, legal notice dated 01/08/2014 Ex.CW1/C,\n\npostal receipts Ex.CW1/D and delivery/ tracking report Ex.CW1/E.\n\n The appellant/ accused had failed to raise any probable\n\ndefence. Appellant/accused had failed to rebut the presumptionu/s.\n\n118and139N.I.Act. On the other hand, the case of the complainant\n\nwas duly corroborated by his testimony and documentary evidence.Digitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:\n 2023.04.17\n 17:23:45 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.33/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla14. All the points and contentions of both the parties were\n\nduly dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Trial Court rightly held that\n\nthe complainant had successfully proved all essential ingredients ofSection 138N.I. Act. There is nothing on the record to show that the\n\nLd. Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and\n\nperversely. There is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the\n\nimpugned judgment and order on sentence passed by the Ld. Trial\n\nCourt.Sentence and fine/compensation amount awarded by the\n\nLd. Trial Court are not excessive and the same are reasonable and\n\njustified.15. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down\n\nin the case laws relied upon by counsel for the appellant, however, the\n\nsame are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present\n\ncase.16. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the\n\naforesaid case laws, this Court is held that there is no illegality,\n\nimpropriety and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order on\n\nsentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Impugned judgment datedDigitally signedby VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR\n SHANKAR Date:2023.04.17\n 17:25:23 +0700CA No. 28/2021 Page No.34/35Neeraj Sharma Vs. Gaurav Kajla\n\n\n\n26/06/2020 and order on sentence dated 05/08/2020 passed by the Ld.\n\nTrial Court are upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal of the\n\nappellant is dismissed. No order as to costs.Appellant be taken into custody to serve the sentence\n\nawarded by the Ld. Trial Court. Benefit ofSection 428Cr.P.C. be\n\ngiven to the appellant.Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the appellant\n\nfree of cost.Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of\n\nthis judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due\n\ncompliance.Digitally signedby VIJAYSHANKARVIJAY Date:\nAnnounced in the open Court SHANKAR 2023.04.17\n 17:25:35\non 17/04/2023 +0700\n\n (VIJAY SHANKAR)\n ASJ-05 (Central)\n Tis Hazari Courts, DelhiCA No. 28/2021 Page No.35/35 |
5cd4609c-4e2a-5d15-9d5f-6fbc567481c1 | court_cases | Jharkhand High CourtRaghu Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 February, 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n B.A. No.15395 of 2021\n\n Raghu Gope ..... ... Petitioner\n Versus\n The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party\n --------CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND------For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate\n For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.\n --------\n\n02/14.02.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for\n the State.This bail application has been filed on behalf of the\n abovenamed applicant with prayer to release on bail in connection with\n Namkum P.S. Case No.183 of 2021 registered underSections 406,420,467,468,471and120-Bof the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of\n learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the\n F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the Circle Officer, Namkum against the\n three named accused persons including the applicant in regard to making\n forgery and committing fraud in getting the mutation order in their\n favour, which has been subsequently cancelled.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the\n mutation order was passed by the competent authority after completing\n all the formalities. It is further submitted that no alleged forgery or fraud\n was committed by the applicant. The applicant was the bona fide\n purchaser of the land in question and the mutation of the same was done\n in his favour by the informant. The similarly situated co-accused persons,\n namely, Dharmendra Bakshi and Shiv Prakash Singh have already been\n granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order\n dated 22.11.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.8562 of 2021 and the case of the\n applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused persons. The\n applicant has been languishing in jail since 29.07.2021.Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently\n opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant\n and contended that after inquiry and verification, the F.I.R. was lodged\n against the applicant in regard to committing the fraud and forgery in\n mutation proceedings.In view of the submissions made and materials on record,-2-the bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. Let the applicant\n be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty\n Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of\n the court concerned in aforesaid case.(Subhash Chand, J.)\nRohit |
482ee108-756b-52af-829f-873edc6336c4 | court_cases | Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Pradip Kumar Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 December, 2021Item No.151\n\n\n In The High Court At Calcutta\n Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction\n (via video conference)\n15.12.2021\n Ct-24\n WPA 8541 of 2021\n Pradip Kumar Roy\n v.\n The State of West Bengal & Ors.\n\n\n Mr. Srijib Chakraborty\n Mr. Suvasish Chakraborty\n Mr. Biswajit Sarkar\n Mr. Amit Choudhury\n ... for the petitioner.\n\n Mr. Susovan Sengupta\n Mr. Subir Pal\n ... for the State.\n\n Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on\n\n record.\n\n The grievance of the petitioner is that the FPS\n\n dealer Rajkumar Roy expired leaving behind as many as\n\n seven legal heirs. The respondent authorities issued thelicence on compassionate ground in favour of one of the\n\n sons of the deceased dealer without obtaining the\n\n consent or no-objection from the other heirs.The learned advocate representing the State\n\n respondents has filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein a\n\n document dated April 6, 2021 is annexed. The document\n\n dated April 6, 2021 is a notice issued by the Sub-\n\n Divisional Controller (F & S), Berhampore (Sadar) to all\n\n the legal heirs of late Rajkumar Roy the deceased FPS2dealer directing the parties to appear for a hearing on\n\nApril 13, 2021.The learned advocate for the petitioner submits\n\nthat his client was present at the hearing but the party\n\nwas not allowed to make any submission.It has been submitted by both the parties that the\n\nfate of the hearing has not yet been made known to the\n\nparties.As it appears that the authority i.e. the Sub-\n\nDivisional Controller already called for a hearing but no\n\nfinal order has been passed and there is an allegation by\n\nthe petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Controller did not\n\npermit the parties to make submission at the time of\n\nhearing, accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed\n\nof by directing the Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S),\n\nBerhampore (Sadar) to take fresh hearing after giving\n\nprior notice to all the heirs. The hearing shall be\n\nconducted at the earliest, but positively within a period\n\nof eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy\n\nof this order.All the parties shall be permitted to make\n\nsubmission and rely upon documents in their favour.\n\nThe Sub-Divisional Controller after hearing all the\n\nparties and upon perusal of the documents shall pass a\n\nreasoned order and communicate the same to the\n\nparties immediately thereafter.3It is made clear that this Court has not entered\n\n into the merits of the claim of the parties and all points\n\n are left open to be decided by the Sub-Divisional\n\n Controller after hearing the parties.The writ petition stands disposed of.\n\n Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if\n\n applied for, be given to the parties after completion of all\n\n legal formalities.Sh (Amrita Sinha, J.) |
d7f6552f-59f9-5fff-8ceb-bf98e8c534bb | court_cases | Calcutta High CourtTosh Metal And Alloys Industries Pvt. ... vs Before on 2 January, 2024Author:Ravi Krishan KapurBench:Ravi Krishan KapurO-8\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n Original Jurisdiction\n ORIGINAL SIDE\n\n\n CP/132/1970\n TOSH METAL AND ALLOYS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.\n VS\n\n\nBEFORE:\nThe Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPURDate : 2nd January, 2024.The Court: None appears on behalf of the parties nor is the Official\n\nLiquidator represented even in the third call.The matter stands adjourned for the day.(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)\n\n\n\ns.pal |
63ae5802-afad-5806-bc83-e56763b3a7d0 | court_cases | Madras High CourtK.V.Lakshmanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 July, 2020Author:M.DhandapaniBench:M.Dhandapani_________\n W.P. No. 34972/2013\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n DATE : 23.07.2020\n\n CORAM\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI\n\n W.P. NO. 34972 OF 2013\n\n K.V.Lakshmanan .. Petitioner\n\n - Vs -\n\n 1. The State of Tamil Nadu\n rep. By its Secretary to Govt.\n Home Department\n Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.\n\n 2. The Director of Fire Services\n & Rescue Department\n Egmore, Chennai 600 008.\n\n 3. The Divisional Fire Officer\n Thanjavur. .. Respondents\n\n\n Writ petition filed underArticle 226of the Constitution of India praying\n\n this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in\n\n pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in proceeding\n\n Ku.Pa.No. 47/93 dated 14.7.1994 and the order of the 1st respondent in Letter\n\n No.113810/Police-17/97-32 dated 27.9.2000 and the order of the 2nd respondent\n\n\n 1/12\n\n\nhttp://www.judis.nic.in\n _________\n W.P. No. 34972/2013\n\n in proceeding Na.Ka. No.22950/A5/2011 dated 6.4.2011 and quash these orders\n\n and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from\n\n service on 31.5.2011 and settle all the terminal and pensionary benefits.\n\n For Petitioner : Mr. R.Prem Narayanan\n\n For Respondents : Mr. S.Thangavel, Spl. GP\n\n ORDERIt is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Fireman in the Fire\n\n Services Department from 1.9.1980 and that his service records is free of any\n\n blemish. Whileso, the petitioner proceeded on casual leave for 4 days from\n\n 18.5.93 and during the period of leave, the petitioner sustained severe head\n\n injury and, therefore, proceeded on medical leave initially for a period of six\n\n months. It is the case of the petitioner that he was unconscious and the\n\n members of his family, due to the ignorance, failed to communicate the\n\n happenings to his superiors and the ailment of the petitioner prevented him to\n\n submit the necessary leave application on time.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that a charge memo was issued,\n\n which was not served on the petitioner, but was affixed at the door of his\n\n residence. No information was received by the petitioner about the issuance of2/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/2013the charge memo. The aforesaid physical and mental condition of the petitioner\n\n prevented him from submitting any explanation and, therefore, the department\n\n proceeded to conduct an enquiry exparte. Based on the report of the enquiry\n\n officer, the petitioner was terminated from service by the 3rd respondent vide\n\n proceeding dated 14.7.94, against which an appeal was preferred, which was\n\n dismissed and the mercy petition preferred thereafter was also dismissed.\n\n Aggrieved by the above dismissal of his petitions, the present writ petition has\n\n been filed.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the\n\n contentions raised in the grounds filed in support of the petition, submitted that\n\n the petitioner had put in more than 13 years of unblemished service. It is further\n\n submitted that the circumstances surrounding the entire happenings resulting in\n\n the petitioner's failure to submit explanation and his absence during the enquiry\n\n proceedings have not been considered by the respondents in right perspective.\n\n The order of termination, in the above circumstances, is excessive and\n\n disproportionate to the delinquency committed by the petitioner and, therefore,\n\n this Court, by invoking its inherent powers may interfere with the said orders.3/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/20134. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents,\n\n per contra, contended that the petitioner is a member of the disciplined force,\n\n and the petitioner ought to have brought to the knowledge of his superiors his\n\n predicament and submitted his leave application, which has not been done. It is\n\n not open to the petitioner to hide behind the ignorance of his family members to\n\n gain sympathy from this Court. The respondents have taken all the materials\n\n cumulatively into consideration and have decided to terminate the petitioner\n\n and, therefore, no interference is called for with the orders impugned.5. This Court bestowed its best attention to the contentions advanced by\n\n the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials\n\n available on record.6. Before proceeding to analyse the facts of the present case to find out\n\n whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable, the\n\n ratio laid down with regard to matters in which punishment has been imposed,\n\n which is impugned underArticle 226of the Constitution.4/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/20137. It has been the consistent view of the Courts that it is always within the\n\n domain of the appointing authority to decide on the punishment to be imposed\n\n on the delinquent, which should be proportionate to the act of the delinquent.\n\n Only when the punishment is disproportionate and shocking to the conscience,\n\n should the courts interfere in the same in exercise of powers underArt. 226of\n\n the Constitution. In Prem Nath Bali – Vs - High Court of Delhi (2015 (16) SCC415), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-“20. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges\n levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for\n the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should\n be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The\n appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of\n the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record\n of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to\n the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the\n punishment as provided in the Rules.21. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing\n authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major)\n then the courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of\n punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the\n punishment. Such power is exercised when the court finds that\n the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment5/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/2013inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and\n disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby\n shocking the conscience of the court or when it is found to be in\n contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in such cases, remit\n the case to the appointing authority for imposing any other\n punishment as against what was originally awarded to the\n delinquent employee by the appointing authority as per the\n Rules or may substitute the punishment by itself instead of\n remitting to the appointing authority.”\n (Emphasis Supplied)8. True it is that the records reveal that the respondents have followed the\n\n procedure contemplated for proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry by serving\n\n the petitioner duly and in his absence affixing the notice on the door of his house.\n\n The petitioner having not partaken in the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was\n\n set exparte resulting in the culmination of the enquiry report. The disciplinary\n\n authority imposed the punishment of termination from service, which has\n\n received the seal of approval from the higher authorities by rejection of the\n\n petitioner's appeal and mercy petition.9. However, one crucial aspect has been lost sight of by the respondents.\n\n The impugned order of termination was passed in July, 1994 and immediately,6/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/2013the petitioner has preferred his appeal in August, 1994, though the appeal has\n\n been wrongly sent to the 3rd respondent instead of the 2nd respondent. It further\n\n reveals from the record that no intimation/respondent was given to the appeal.\n\n Thereafter, the petitioner has sent his appeal on 30.12.1996 to the 2nd\n\n respondent, which was rejected and, thereafter, mercy petition has been\n\n preferred to the 1st respondent, which received the same fate.10. The crucial aspect, which requires to be considered here is the initial\n\n rejection of the appeal dated 30.12.1996 by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd\n\n respondent has noted that the mercy petition has been filed belatedly and,\n\n therefore, it is not possible to consider the same. However, what has been lost\n\n sight of is the fact that the petitioner has initially submitted the appeal to the 3rd\n\n respondent, though wrongly, on which no intimation has been given to the\n\n petitioner. Even a wrong appeal is entitled to a response and had the petitioner\n\n received the response, the delay would not have occurred. Therefore, the delay\n\n in filing the appeal ought not to be put against the petitioner.11. Further, what transpires from the materials available on record is that7/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/2013the petitioner, while submitting the appeal dated 20.8.1994, to the 3rd\n\n respondent, though wrongly, has annexed the medical certificate. Further, in the\n\n appeal to the 2nd respondent, the medical certificate and fitness certificate have\n\n also been annexed. However, the orders passed by the respondents are silent on\n\n the aspect about the medical certificate annexed by the petitioner. Though the\n\n order passed by the 1st respondent reveals that there is contradiction in the stand\n\n of the petitioner, in that the petitioner has mentioned that he had made an\n\n appeal to the 3rd respondent on 20.8.94 and in contrast has stated that an appeal\n\n was made to the 2nd respondent, after discharge from the hospital on 13.11.96\n\n along with medical records, however, the fact remains that there is no whisper\n\n about the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. It has not\n\n been disputed by the 3rd respondent that no appeal was received from the\n\n petitioner, though wrongly. Further, the order of the 1st respondent is also silent\n\n on the aspect of the medical condition of the petitioner, though the order reveals\n\n that medical records were annexed with the mercy petition. In such a backdrop,\n\n this Court is of the considered opinion that the delinquency as a whole, coupled\n\n with the other relevant factors and documents have not been considered in\n\n proper perspective by the appellate authorities, while confirming the order of8/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/2013termination.12. Though this Court is of the view that all is not well with the\n\n respondents while considering the appeal and mercy petition of the petitioner,\n\n equally, the petitioner has also been lethargic and not diligent enough to pursue\n\n the matter. The petitioner has pleaded ignorance on the part of his family\n\n members to the notice affixed on the notice board and stated that they are not\n\n aware of the official procedures of information to be given to the higher\n\n authorities. Further, the medical records have not been placed before this Court\n\n to come to a definite conclusion as to the actual medical condition of the\n\n petitioner. However, the authorities were duty bound to consider the medical\n\n records before passing the order of termination. The petitioner claims that he is\n\n a recipient of good service honours for more than a dozen times from the\n\n department. The past service of the petitioner ought to have been taken into\n\n account while imposing punishment. The petitioner has put in more than 13\n\n years of unblemished service and the present scar on the petitioner cannot be a\n\n case of outright rejection by terminating the petitioner from service. The past\n\n service ought to have been taken into account while imposing punishment on the9/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/2013petitioner. The petitioner, a member of disciplined force, as submitted by the\n\n learned Special Government Pleader, deserves to suffer for his wrongful act, but\n\n equally, his service also should stand appreciated while imposing punishment.13. Considering the factual matrix as a whole and on the basis of the\n\n materials available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the\n\n punishment of termination imposed on the petitioner requires to be modified\n\n and instead the petitioner shall stand compulsorily retired from service. In view\n\n of the above modification in punishment, the petitioner would stand entitled for\n\n all the terminal and pensionary benefits in consonance with the service rendered\n\n by him.14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part by modifying the\n\n punishment of termination to one of compulsory retirement and the petitioner\n\n will stand entitled for all the terminal and pensionary benefits. The respondents\n\n are directed to calculate the service of the petitioner from the date of his entry\n\n into service till the date of his absenting from work and calculate the terminal\n\n benefits and other benefits, including pension, if any, payable to him and10/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/2013disburse the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a\n\n copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.23.07.2020\n\n Index : Yes/No\n Internet : Yes/No\n GLN\n\n\n To\n 1. The Secretary to Govt.\n Home Department\n Government of Tamil Nadu\n Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.\n\n 2. The Director of Fire Services\n & Rescue Department\n Egmore, Chennai 600 008.\n\n 3. The Divisional Fire Officer\n Thanjavur.11/12http://www.judis.nic.in\n _________W.P. No. 34972/2013M.DHANDAPANI, J.\n\n\n\n GLN\n\n\n\n\n W.P. NO. 34972 OF 2013\n\n\n\n\n 23.07.202012/12http://www.judis.nic.in |
ad8f5aac-414a-5bec-b0f9-d54f973fa12d | court_cases | Tripura High CourtNone vs Mr. A. De on 10 March, 2020Author:S. TalapatraBench:S. TalapatraHIGH COURT OF TRIPURA\n AGARTALA\n\n WP(C) 187 of 2018\n\n For Petitioner(s) : None.\n\n For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. De, Adv.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA\n\n Order\n\n 10.03.2020\n\n\n At the request of Mr. A. De, learned counsel\n\n appearing for the respondents, list the matter on 17.03.2020.JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nDipak |
f04cdf43-edca-5efc-a574-7f41f189bf4a | court_cases | Delhi District CourtState vs Sh. Noor Mohammad @ Noora on 19 September, 2022CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n DLNE01-000970-2021\n\n\n\n\n IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA\n ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,\n NORTH-EAST DISTRICT\n KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI\n\n\n INDEX\nSl. No. HEADINGS Page Nos.\n 1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2\n 2 The case set up by the Prosecution 2-3\n 3 Charges 4-5\n 4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 5-8\n 5 Plea of accused underSection 313Cr.P.C. 9\n 6 Arguments of Defence & Prosecution 9-10\n APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE\n 7 Unlawful Assembly and Riots 10-11\n 8 Identification of accused 11-13\n 9 Conclusion and Decision 13\n\n\n\n\nPage 1 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)\n ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n\n\n Sessions Case No. : 127/2021\n Under Section : 147/148/149/188/435/436/392/34IPCPolice Station : Khajuri Khas\n FIR No. : 153/2020\n CNR No. : DLNE01-000970-2021\n\n In the matter of: -\n STATE\n VERSUS\n\n SH. NOOR Mohammad @ NOORA\n S/o. Sh. Munna Mauji,\n R/o. Kalla Cable Wali Gali, Milan Garden,\n near Mangal Bazar, Khajuri Khas, Delhi\n .....Accused\n Complainants : SH. MOHD. HANIF\n S/o. Sh. Abdul Majid,\n R/o. H.No. 90/B, Gali No.2,\n New Mustafabad.\n\n\n Date of Institution : 30.06.2020\n Date of reserving order : 14.09.2022\n Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2022\n Decision : Acquitted of all the charges.\n (Section 437-ACr.P.C. complied with by accused)\n\n JUDGMENTTHE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: -1. The above named accused has been charge-sheeted by the police\n for having committed offences punishable underSection\n 147/148/149/188/435/436/392/34IPC.2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 02.03.2020, FIR was\n registered on the basis of written complaint dated 29.02.2020Page 2 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n (received vide DD No.53-B), made by one Mohd. Hanif, wherein\n he alleged that his tailoring shop in the name and style of "Prince\n Tailor", situated in Gali No.4, E-Block, near Adarsh Lakhpat\n School, Khajuri Khas, main Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94, was\n looted and set on fire by the riotous mob on 24.02.2020, at about\n 05:00 PM. Complainant also alleged that he suffered financial\n loss to the tune of around Rs.5 lac. He also alleged that at that\n time there were coat & pant meant for marriage, uniform of mid-day meal, stock of clothes, dresses of other customers and\n sewing machine, in his shop.3. During investigation, accused Noor Mohammad @ Noora was\n identified as one of the members of the mob, which indulged into\n the riot covering this incident of 24.02.2020. Accordingly,\n accused was arrested, in the present case. After completion of\n investigation, on 30.06.2020 a chargesheet was filed before Duty\n MM (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, against accused\n Noor Mohammad @ Noora, for offences punishable underSection 147/148/149/188/435/436/392/34IPC. On 30.01.2021,\n ld. CMM (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, took\n cognizance of offences punishable underSection\n 147/148/149/392/435/436IPC. However, ld. CMM (N/E)\n declined to take cognizance of offence underSection 188IPC,\n for want of complaint underSection 195Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on\n 12.02.2021, case was committed to the sessions court. Thereafter,\n on 29.11.2021, a supplementary chargesheet was filed before ld.CMM (N/E), which was committed to the sessions court vide\n order dated 06.12.2021.Page 3 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n CHARGES :-4. On 31.08.2021, charges were framed against accused Noor\n Mohammad @ Noora for offences punishable underSection\n 143/147/148/392/436IPC read withSection 149IPC, in\n following terms: -"That on 24.02.2020, at or around 5.00PM, in the area\n of E-Block, Khajuri Khas, main Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-\n 110094, within the jurisdiction of PS Khajuri Khas, you being from\n a particular community alongwith your other associates\n (unidentified) formed an unlawful assembly, the object whereof was\n to cause maximum damage to the property and persons belonging\n to the other community and commit robbery and arson in the shops,\n houses and other properties of the persons from other community by\n the use of force or violence in prosecution of the common object of\n such assembly and thereby committed offences punishable under\n Section(s) 143/147/148IPCread withSection 149IPC and within\n my cognizance.Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you\n being member of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your\n common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified)\n committed robbery in the shop by the name of "Prince Tailor",\n situated in Gali No.4, E-Block, near Adarsh Lakhpat School,\n Khajuri Khas, main Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94, belonging to\n complainant Mohd. Hanif, S/o. Shri Abdul Mazid and thereby\n committed an offence punishable underSection 392IPC read withSection 149IPC and within my cognizance.Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you being\n member of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common\n object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed\n mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the\n said shop ("Prince Tailor"), belonging to aforesaid complainant\n and thereby committed an offence punishable underSection 436IPC read withSection 149IPC and within my cognizance."5. Thereafter, on 20.07.2022, additional charge was framed against\n accused Noor Mohammad @ Noora for offence punishable underSection 188IPC, in following terms: -"That, on 24.02.2020 at or around 5.00 p.m. in the area of E-block,\n Khajuri Khas, main Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94, within the\n jurisdiction of PS Khajuri Khas, you being member of an unlawfulPage 4 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) was\n present at aforesaid place, in prosecution of the common object of\n such unlawful assembly and in violation of the proclamation issued\n u/s 144 Cr. PC by the competent authority/DCP, North East vide\n order dated 24.02.2020 bearing no.10094-170 X-1, North East,\n Delhi dt.24.02.2020, which was duly announced in all the\n localities of District North East and, thereby you committed\n offence punishable underSection 188IPC and within my\n cognizance."DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-6. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case, as per\n following descriptions: -Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved\n Name of documents documents/\n Witness case\n properties\n PW-1/ Sh. He was the complainant in the present Ex.PW1/A\n Mohd. Hanif case. PW1 gave written complaint in PS (complaint of\n and identified his signature at point A on PW1)\n the same. On the point of identification\n of accused, he did not support the case\n of prosecution.PW-2/Sh. He narrated the incident dated 24.02.2020, wherein\n Wasim his factory of ladies garments at E-251, Gali No.4,\n Khajuri Khas, Delhi, was set on fire by the mob.\n PW-3/Sh. He was also resident of E block, and he made a\n Amit telephone call at 100 number from his mobile no.9858585833 on 24.02.2020, regarding pelting of\n stones upon the houses by a huge mob.PW-4/Ct. He produced original order under Ex.PW4/A\n NeerajSection 144Cr.P.C., which was issued (copy of\n Kumar by the then DCP, NorthEast District, order under\n Delhi, on 24.02.2020.Section 144Cr.P.C. dated\n 24.02.2020)\n PW-5/ SI He was investigating officer in case FIR No.221/20,\n Sandeep PS Khajuri Khas, who arrested accused Noor\n Mohammad @ Noora on 31.03.2020.Page 5 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved\n Name of documents documents/\n Witness case\n properties\nPW-6/ Smt. She was resident of gali no. 12, and she also made a\nMamta telephone call at 100 number regarding riot dated\nPathak 24.02.2020, taking place in the rear side of her house.\nPW-7/ Sh. He was resident of Munga Nagar, and he also made a\nSunil Singh telephone call at 100 number, being terrified of\n incident of riot dated 24.02.2020, taking place in the\n gali in front of his house.PW-8/ Retd. On 02.03.2020, he was posted as Ex.PW8/A\nSI Chander Duty Officer from 8 AM till 4 PM. (endorsement\nPal On that day, at about 01:54 PM, PW8 on rukka);received rukka from ASI Jamshed Ali Ex.PW8/B\n and registered FIR in the present (cop of FIR)\n case. PW8 handed over original &\n rukka and copy of FIR to Ct.\n Rohtash. Ex.PW8/C\n (certificatePW8 identified his endorsement from u/s 65-B of\n points X to X, bearing his signatureI.E. Act)\n point Y. PW8 also identified his\n signature at point A on his certificate\n underSection 65-Bof I.E. Act, in\n support of aforesaid FIR.PW-9/ ASI On 02.03.2020, he was posted as ASI in PS Khajuri\nJamshed Ali Khas. On that day, at about 10 AM, SHO Insp. Pawan\n Kumar handed over him one complaint of PW-\n 1/Mohd. Hanif for getting FIR registered. On receipt\n of that complaint, PW9 prepared rukka and handed\n over the same to Duty Officer (PW8), for registration\n of FIR. After registration of FIR, PW8 handed over\n copy of FIR and original rukka to PW9, for\n investigation.PW9 identified his rukka from points B to B1 and his\n signature appearing in circle B2, on Ex.PW1/A.\n Thereafter, investigation of the present case was\n transferred to SIT Crime Branch and PW9 deposited\n the complete case file with record Moharrar of his PSPage 6 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved\n Name of documents documents/\n Witness case\n properties\n on 10.03.2020.PW-10/ Ct. On 02.04.2020, he was posted at PS Ex.PW10/A\nSangram Khajuri Khas. On that day, at about (arrest memo\nSingh 10-11 AM, SI Sandeep and ASI of accused)\n Jeevanand were interrogating one boy\n in front of Lock-up. PW10 identified\n that boy as one of the boys, who was\n involved in the riots on 24.02.2020.\n PW10 had seen that boy while\n throwing articles out of the shop and\n destroying the same on 24.02.2020 in\n gali no.4, E-Block, Khajuri Khas.PW10 told this fact to SI Sandeep and\n ASI Jeevanand. He came to know\n name of this boy as Noor Mohammad\n @ Noora.PW10 was witness to arrest of\n accused. He identified his signature at\n circle X on the same.On 24.02.2020, PW10 was on duty\n from about 9-10 AM, in gali no.4, E-Block, Khajuri Khas in front of\n Lakhpat School. HC Vikram and HC\n Virender were also present there and\n all of them were dispersing the mob,\n which indulged in destroying and\n putting on fire the articles of the\n shops, in gali no.4 of aforesaid place.\n PW10 had seen accused while\n entering the shops and coming out\n with the articles and throwing the\n same in the gali, as he had not\n covered his face at that time.PW-11/ASI On 11.03.2020, he was posted at PS Ex.PW11/A\nJeevanand Khajuri Khas. On that day, on the (site plan\n directions of SHO, case file was prepared byPage 7 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved\n Name of documents documents/\n Witness case\n properties\n handed over to him for further PW11)\n investigation.PW11 met complainant (PW1),\n prepared site plan of place of incident\n at his instance and recorded his\n statement underSection 161Cr.P.C.\n On 02.04.2020, PW11 interrogated\n accused for the purpose of this case.\n At that time, PW1/Sh. Hanif had also\n come to PS to enquire about status of\n his case and pointed out towards\n accused as the responsible person for\n vandalism in his shop. PW10/Ct.Sangram also came there and he also\n identified accused, being involved in\n the incident of vandalism in the shop\n of PW1/Sh. Hanif, in the name and\n style of M/s. Prince Tailor. Thereafter,\n PW11 arrested accused Noora in the\n present case.PW11 identified his signature in\n circle X on site plan prepared by him.\n After completion of investigation,\n PW11 prepared chargesheet and filed\n before court.PW-12/ Ct. In February 2020, he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas,\nDevender as reader to SHO.On 24.02.2020, he received copy of order underSection 144Cr.P.C., issued by DCP, through\n Dak/rider.On the direction of SHO, PW12 announced\n proclamation underSection 144Cr.P.C. in the area of\n PS Khajuri Khas, through loud speaker.Page 8 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.7. Accused Noor Mohammad @ Noora denied all the allegations\n and pleaded innocence, taking plea that he was falsely arrested in\n this case and he never indulged in riots. He further took plea that\n he was falsely implicated in the present case by the investigating\n agency. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.\n Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final\n arguments.8. I heard ld. Special PP and ld. defence counsel for accused and I\n have perused the entire material on the record.\n ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE & PROSECUTION9. Sh. Akhtar Shamim, ld. defence counsel for accused Noor\n Mohammad @ Noora argued that prosecution cited three\n witnesses for identification of accused, but accused wsa not\n identified by PW1/Sh. Mohd. Hanif and PW2/Sh. Wasim, in the\n present case. He further argued that testimony of PW10/Ct.\n Sangram and PW11/ASI Jeevanad, should be read together. Ld.\n counsel further argued that it is not the case of prosecution that\n some members of the mob had covered their faces and some\n were without any cover to face. He further argued that\n identification of accused was done for the first time on\n 02.04.2020 and prior to that there is no statement stating that, if\n anyone could identify accused in the present case. Ld. defence\n counsel further argued that IO started investigation since\n 11.03.2020 and no evidence was obtained against accused till\n 02.04.2020. Only when on 02.04.2020, accused was arrested, he\n was implicated in nine cases, which had not been worked out, byPage 9 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n manipulating statement of witnesses. He further argued that\n PW10/Ct. Sangram did not make any video of incident, though\n he had smart phone. He further argued that since PW10/Ct.\n Sangram was more concerned about his safety etc., therefore, he\n could not have identified a single person out of that mob. He\n further argued that IO/PW11 did not record statement of\n PW1/Sh. Mohd. Hanif, prior to 02.04.2020.10. Per contra, Sh. Naresh Kumar Gaur, ld. Special PP for the State\n argued that PW10/Ct. Sangram identified accused as member of\n the mob. He further argued that PW12/Ct. Devender had\n announced proclamation order underSection 144Cr.P.C. dated\n 24.02.2020 in the area of PS Khajuri Khas. He further argued that\n in the given atmosphere, police could not have made any video in\n such tensed condition. He further argued that everyone knew of\n proclamation of order underSection 144Cr.P.C. in the area of PS\n Khajuri Khas. Ld. Special PP further argued that PW10/Ct.\n Sangram informed SHO about having identified some rioters on\n 24.02.2020, itself.APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE\n UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY & RIOTS11. Testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW10 mention about the\n mob, which was indulging into vandalism and arson in that area\n covering gali no. 4, E-block, Khajuri Khas, Delhi on 24.02.2020.\n This fact has not been challenged by the defence. PW1 and PW2\n also testified about damage to their shop and factory respectively.\n Their evidence read along with testimony of PW10, show that\n such damage was caused by the riotous mob. Though PW1 alsoPage 10 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n proved some photographs of his shop, but he did not prove\n certificate underSection 65-B, Indian Evidence Act, in support of\n such photographs. This omission on the part of prosecution, to\n obtain requisite certificate from the concerned photographer and\n prove the photographs accordingly, leaves no option for this court\n but to ignore the photographs. Nonetheless, the testimonies of\n above-mentioned witnesses, in absence of any dispute, are\n sufficient to prove that there was an unlawful assembly, which\n committed riot in that area.IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED12. The foremost question is that whether accused Noor Mohammad\n @ Noora was also involved in the aforesaid incident, as a\n member of above-mentioned unlawful assembly? To establish\n identity of accused as member of above-mentioned mob,\n prosecution relied upon testimony of PW1 and PW-10/Ct.\n Sangram. PW1 turned hostile in respect of identifying any rioter\n in that mob. He was cross examined by ld. prosecutor, but to no\n avail. According to PW10, he saw accused in that mob, which\n indulged in destroying and putting on fire the articles of shops in\n gali no.4, E-Block, Khajuri Khas, including the shop of PW1.13. It is matter of record that in his complaint dated 29.02.2020,\n PW1/Sh. Mohd. Hanif did not name accused as one of the rioters\n nor did he say that he had seen and could identify any of the\n rioters. As per testimony of IO/PW11, PW10 told him about\n involvement of accused in the riot for the first time on\n 02.04.2020. Though, the investigation of this case was entrusted\n to PW11on 11.03.2020 and he also knew that PW10 was beatPage 11 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\nconstable of the concerned area, but IO did not examine PW10\nprior to 02.04.2020. In his cross-examination at one point of\ntime, IO deposed that in this case prior to 02.04.2020, no one had\ntold him except Hanif that he could identify accused involved in\nthis case. At the same time, IO again said that he had made\ninquiries from PW10 before 02.04.2020 also and PW10 had told\nhim that he could identify the person responsible for vandalism\nin the shop of Hanif. Still, IO/PW11 did not record statement of\nPW10, nor did he mention this fact in the case diary. Thus, I find\nthat IO contradicted his own statement regarding getting\ninformation prior to 02.04.2020 of the relevant witness i.e.\nPW10, who could identify the culprits. Surprisingly, he did not\nrecord such information either in the form of statement underSection 161Cr.P.C. or in the case diary, if he had at all received\nsuch information from PW10 or for that matter from PW1. This\nshows that identification of accused on 02.04.2020, was probably\noutcome of an after thought development. When PW1 was\nallegedly examined by IO, he had not only stated about\nvandalism in his shop, but at the same time he also stated about\nassault on him by that mob. However, PW1 altogether denied\nsuch facts in his testimony before the court and turned hostile to\nthe case of prosecution. The proceedings of 02.04.2020 regarding\ninterrogation of accused in other case and coincidental visit of\nPW1 as well as PW10 to that place in PS at the same time,\nresulting into identification of accused as one of the culprits in\nthe incident in question, does appear unnatural. Therefore, I do\nnot find it safe to rely upon such coincidental identification byPage 12 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n CNR No. DLNE01-000970-2021\n State v. Noor Mohammad @ Noora\n SC No. 127/2021, FIR No. 153/2020, PS Khajuri Khas\n Judgment dated 19.09.2022\n\n PW10, so as to presume involvement of accused in the incident\n in question. Hence, I find that testimony of PW10 is not reliable\n and sufficient at all, to establish presence of accused in the mob,\n which indulged into riot and incident investigated in this case.\n CONCLUSION & DECISION14. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I\n find that charges levelled against the accused in this case are not\n proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Noor\n Mohammad @ Noora is acquitted of all the charges levelled\n against him in this case. Digitally signed\n by PULASTYA\n PULASTYA PRAMACHALA\n PRAMACHALA Date:2022.09.19\n 18:06:01 +0530\n Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)\n today on 19.09.2022 ASJ-03 (North- East)\n (This order contains 13 pages) Karkardooma Courts/DelhiPage 13 of 13 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi |
eeef3638-2b80-5832-af9a-562d4c45bbf4 | court_cases | Madras High CourtS.Shanmugasundaram vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 September, 2022Author:G.K.IlanthiraiyanBench:G.K.IlanthiraiyanW.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n DATED: 22.09.2022\n\n CORAM:\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN\n\n W.P.Nos.24540, 24542, 24543, 24544, 24546 to 24549, 24551, 24936,\n 24942, 24943, 24945, 24946, 24982, 25033, 25079, 25081, 25082,\n 25084, 25085, 25086, 25088, 25089, 25125, 25130, 25208, 25213,\n 25227, 25234, 25260, 25264, 25270, 25273, 25277, 25393, 25396,\n 25432, 25435, 25437, 25438, 25440, 25441, 25442, 25445, 25447,\n 25570, 25574, 25579 of 2022\n and\n W.M.P.Nos.23505, 23509, 23510, 23513, 23516, 23511, 23515, 23517,\n 23518, 23877, 23885, 23886, 23887, 23888, 23917, 23979, 24033,\n 24036, 24041, 24069, 24215, 24218, 24223, 24229, 24232, 24577,\n 24420, 24424, 24423, 24370, 24374, 24419, 24425, 24462, 24422,\n 24427, 24435 of 2022\n\n W.P.No.24540 of 2022 :-\n\n S.Shanmugasundaram ...Petitioner\n\n -Vs-\n\n 1. The State of Tamil Nadu\n Rep by its Secretary,\n Home Department,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai – 600 009.\n\n 2. The Director General of Police,\n Post Box No.601,\n Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,\n Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n Page 1 of 26\n W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n 3. The Superintendent of Police,\n Cuddalore District,\n Cuddalore – 607 001.\n\n 4. The Inspector of Police,\n Cuddalore New Town Police Station,\n Cuddalore – 607 001. ... Respondents\n\n Prayer: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226of the Constitution of India\n praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to\n permit the petitioner and the member of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh\n (RSS) to conduce the procession (Route March) wearing their Unifor\n (Dark Olive Green Trousers, White Shirt, Cap, Belt, Black Shoes) lead\n by a musical band from Subbarayalur Reddiar Thirumana Mandapam,\n Manjakuppam to Manjakuppam Ground (Via old Collector office road,\n Anna Nagar Main Road, Beach Main Road, Four Corner Road,\n Pudupalayam junction, Bharathi Road) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 pm., an\n conduct a public meeting on Manjakuppam Ground at 5.00 p.m., to 6.30\n pm., pursuant to the petitioner's representation to the fourth respondent\n dated 25.08.2022.\n In all W.Ps.\n For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Senior Counsel &\n Mr.N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel &\n Mr.G.Raja Gopal, Senior Counsel\n For Mr.B.Rabu Manohar\n\n For Respondents : Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah\n State Public prosecutor\n Assisted by Mr.E.Raj Thilak\n Additional Public Prosecutor &\n Mr.S.Santhosh,\n Government Advocate (Crl. Side)\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n Page 2 of 26\n W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n COMMON ORDERThese Writ Petitions have been filed for directions directing\n\n the respondents to permit the petitioners to conduct procession (route\n\n march) wearing their uniform lead by a musical band in various places on\n\n 02.10.2022 at different times, all over Tamil Nadu.2. The petitioners are functioning as various posts of Rashtriya\n\n Swayam Sevak Sangh (herein after referred to as “RSS”). It is found in\n\n the year 1925. In order to celebrate 75th year of Independence, the birth\n\n centenary of Barath Ratna Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and Vijaydasamy, they\n\n decided to take out procession on 02.10.2022 at various places and to\n\n conduct a public meeting on the same day. Therefore, the petitioners\n\n have submitted their respective representations underSection 41(A)of\n\n the Chennai City Police Act (herein after referred to as “the Act”) andSection 30(2)of the Police Act, requesting the authorities concerned to\n\n grant permission to the petitioners to conduct procession on 02.10.2022\n\n and also to conduct public meeting. However, their applications are\n\n pending on the file of the authorities concerned and not yet decided till\n\n now. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file these Writ\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 3 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n Petitions seeking direction to grant necessary permissions to conduct\n\n procession and for the public meeting on 02.10.2022.3. Heard Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Senior Counsel,\n\n Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel, and Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned\n\n Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Hasan Mohammed\n\n Jinnah, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents in\n\n all the Writ Petitions.4. The details of the representations submitted by the\n\n respective petitioners for seeking permission, are as follows :-Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n 1 W.P.No.24540 Cuddalore From Subbarayalu Reddiar Thirumana\n of 2022 Mandapam, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore to\n Manjakuppam Ground (Via old Collector\n Office Road, Anna Nagar Main Road,\n Beach Main Road, Four Corner Road,\n Pudupalayam junction, Bharathi Road) on\n 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m. And conduct a\n public meeting on Manjakuppam Ground,\n Cuddalore, from 5.00 p.m., to 6.30 p.m.\n 2 W.P.No.24542 Chennai From Dr.Nalli Kuppuswamy Vivekananda\n of 2022 Vidyalaya, Korattur to Dr. Nalli\n Kuppswamy Vivekananda Vidyalaya,\n Korattur, (Via 17th Street, 31st Street, North\n Avenue, Station Road Bridge, NRS Road,\n Sivalingapuram, Ellaiamman Nagar) on\n 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting on Dr.Nalli Kuppuswamy\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 4 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n Vivekananda Vidyalaya, Korattur, from\n 6.00 p.m., to 7.30 p.m.\n 3 W.P.No.24543 Villupuram From Municipality Ground Near New Bus\n of 2022 Stand, Villupuram to Old Bus Stand,\n Villupuram (Via Chennai to Trichy Main\n Road, Kamarajar Street, Thiru Vi Ka Street,\n PJN Road) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and\n conduct a public meeting near Villupuram\n Old Bus stand, from 5.00 pm., to 6.30 p.m.,\n 4 W.P.No.24544 Gobi From Gobi Town to Muthu Mahal Arch,\n of 2022 Chettipalayam Gobi, (Via Modachur (Thandhondri\n Amman Koil, Muthu Mahal Arch) on\n 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting on Muthu Mahal Arch,\n Gobi, from 5.00 p.m., to 6.30 p.m.,5 W.P.No.24546 Srivilliputtur From Pathavinayagar Kovil, Srivilliputtur to\n of 2022 Theradi (Via Kamarajar Salai, Maraiamman\n Kovil, East Car Street) on 02.10.2022 at\n 4.25 pm., and conduct a public meeting on\n Theradi, Srivilliputtur, from 6.00 p.m., to\n 7.30 p.m.,\n 6 W.P.No.24547 Mulanur From Sakthi Agency, Mulanur to NSN\n of 2022 (Tiruppur) Mahal, Mulanur (viz SMW Mill, Karur\n Main Road, Sanarpalayam Road) on\n 02.10.2022 at 5.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting on NSN Mahal, Mulanur,\n from 6.00 to 7.30 p.m.\n 7 W.P.No.24548 Erode From Sengunthar Higher Secondary School,\n of 2022 Erode to Anjaneyar Temple, Kallukadai\n Medu, Erode (Via Eswaran Kovil Street,\n Mani Koondu, Periyar Mandram, Katcheri\n Street, Marapalam Road) on 02.10.2022 at\n 3.00 pm., and conduct a public meeting on\n back side of Anjaneyar Temple, Kallukadai\n Medu, Erode, from 5.00 p.m., to 6.00 p.m.\n 8 W.P.No.24549 Namakkal From Poongasalai, Namakkal to\n of 2022 Poongasalai, Namakkal (Viz Poongasalai,\n Trichy Road, State Bank, Mohanoor Road,\n Iyappan Kovil, S.P.Puthur, Poongasalai) on\n 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m. and conduct a pubic\n meeting on Poogasalai, Namakkal, from\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 5 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n 5.00 p.m., to 8.00 p.m.,\n 9 W.P.No.24551 Salem From Pandurangan Vital Street,\n of 2022 Kalarampatti, Salem to Dhadhagapatti Gate,\n Salem (Via Karungalpatti Main Road,\n Prabath theatre, Trichy Road, Pillukadai) on\n 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct public\n meeting on Dhadhagapatti Gate Thidal,\n Salem, from 4.30 p.m., to 6.00 p.m.\n 10 W.P.No.24936 Perambalur From Palakarai Roundana, Perambalur to\n of 2022 West Radio Thidal, Perambalur (Via\n Krishna Theatre, Roever Arch, Raja\n Theatre, Elambalur Road, Kamarajar Arch,\n Gandhi Statue) on 02.10.2022 at 4.00 p.m.,\n and conduct a public meeting at West Radio\n thidal, Perambalur at 5.15 p.m., to 7.00 p.m.11. W.P.No.24942 Chengalpattu From old Bus Stand, Chengalpattu to\n of 2022 Vivekananda Vidyalaya, Chengalpattu (Via\n Mettu Street, Anna Salai, Kundur,\n Azhagesan Nagar, Main Road Anna Nagar\n 1st street) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and\n conduct a public meeting near KCJ\n Vivekananda Vidyalaya, Chengalpattu,\n from 5.00 p.m., to 7.00 p.m.12. W.P.No.24943 Kumbakonam From Gandhi Road, Kumbakonam to\n of 2022 Gandhi Road, Kumbakonam (via Head Post\n Office, Diamond Theatre, TSR Periya\n Kadai Street, Pookadai Street, Tanjore Main\n Road, Devan Hotel, Morning Star School)\n on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting near Raya Kalayana Mahal,\n Gandhi Road, Kumbakonam, from 5.00\n p.m., to 7.00 p.m.13. W.P.No.24945 Thiru From Surya Mahal, Thirumangalam to\n of 2022 mangalam Rajaji Statue, Thirumangalam (via Surya\n Mahal, Aatu Santhai, Usilampatti Road,\n Devar Statue, Munsif Court Road,\n Bharathiyar Street, Suma Hospital, D.S.P.\n Office, Bus Stand) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00\n p.m., and conduct a public Meeting near\n Rajaji Statue, Thirumangalam, from 6.00\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 6 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n p.m., to 8.00 p.m.14. W.P.No.24946 Pattukottai From Kasankulam Keelkarai, Pattukottai to\n of 2022 Post Office, Pattukottai (Via Thenkarai\n Melkarai, Post office, manikoondu,\n Aranathangi Mukkam, Samiyarmadam) on\n 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting near post office Corner,\n Pattukottai, from 6.00 p.m., to 8.00 p.m.15. W.P.No.24982 Coimbatore From Saratha Mill Road, Coimbatore to\n of 2022 Masarayan Kovil Thottam, Coimbatore (Via\n Sangam Veethi, Machampalayam,\n Idaiyarpalayam, Saraswathi Ramachandra\n Palli street, Machapalayam Road) on\n 02.10.2022 at 2.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting on Masarayan Kovil\n Thottam, Coimbatore, from 6.00 p.m., to\n 9.0 p.m.,16. W.P.No.25033 Karambakudi From Muthu Karuppaiya Swamy Kovil\n of 2022 (Aranthangi) Entrance, Karambakudi to Seenikkadai\n Mukkam, Karambakudi (via Murugan Kovil\n Back Side Road, Thiruvonam Road,\n Thattara Theru, Narangipattu Road,\n Katcheri Veethi, Bus Stand, Gandhi park)\n on 02.10.2022 at 5.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting on Seenikkadai Mukkam,\n Karambakudi, from 6.00 p.m., to 7.30 p.m.17. W.P.No.25079 Pollachi From Rajeshwari Mahal, Palladam Road,\n of 2022 Pollachi to Rajeshwari Mahal, palladam\n Road, Pollachi (Via Thermutte, Chatharam\n Street, Bazzar Street, Venkatramanan\n Street, Central Bus Stand, Gandhi Statute)\n on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting in front of Rajeswari Mahal\n at Palladam Road, Pollachi, from 7.00 p.m.,\n to 9.30 p.m.18. W.P.No.25081 Kanchipuram From Ground nearby Hotel Saravana\n of 2022 Bhavan, Gandhi Road, Kanchipuram to\n Ground nearby Hotel Saravana Bhavan,\n Gandhi Road, Kanchipuram (Via Vallal\n Panchayappan Street, Bus Stand Back Side,\n CSI Hospital, Sekkupettai Nadu Street,\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 7 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n Ennaikara Street, Railway Road) on\n 02.10.2022 at 4.30 p.m.,and conduct a\n public meeting on Ground nearby Hotel\n Saravana Bhavan, Kanchipuram, from 6.00\n to 8.00 p.m.19. W.P.No.25082 Dharmapuri From Variyar Thidal, Kumarasamy pettai to\n of 2022 Variyar Thidal, Kumarasamy pettai (Via\n Four Road, Periyar Statue, S.V.Road,\n Municipal Park, Nethaji Bye Pass Road,\n Govt. G.H. Hospital) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00\n p.m., and conduct a public meeting on\n Variyar Thidal, Kumarasamy pettai, from\n 6.00 p.m., to 8.00 p.m.20. W.P.No.25084 Madurai From Vadiyur Perumal Kovil, Madurai to\n of 2022 Ambiga Theatre, Madurai (Via\n Anumarpatti, Vandiyur Main Road,\n Sourastrapuram, Melamadai Main Road,\n Suguna Store, Anna Nagar 80 feet Road) on\n 02.10.2022 at 4.30 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting near Ambiga theatre,\n Madurai, from 6.00 p.m., to 8.00 p.m.21. W.P.No.25085 Arakkonam From Sri Selva Vinayagar Kovil (TNHB\n of 2022 Main Road,) Arakkonam to Dr. Ambedkhar\n Century Arch, Arakkonam (Via Indra\n Gandhi Statue, Taluk Office, Gandhi Road,\n Old bus stand, Market) on 02.10.2022 at\n 3.00 p.m., and conduct a public meeting on\n private ground opposite Jai Bhim Arch,\n Arakkonam, from 5.00 p.m., to 7.00 p.m.22. W.P.No.25086 Trichy From Mrakadai M.G.R. Statue, Trichy to\n of 2022 Mela Chinthamani, Trichy (Via Gandhi\n Market, Periya Kadai Veethi, NSB Road,\n Nandhi Kovil Street, Kaliyamman Kovil\n Street) on 02.10.2022 at 4.00 p.m., and\n conduct a public meeting on mela\n Chinthamani, Trichy, from 5.30 p.m., to\n 7.30 p.m.,\n 23 W.P.No.25088 Palani From Pathavinyagar Kovil, Palani to\n of 2022 Theradi, Palani (Via Thiruaavinankudi,\n Devar Statue, Mayil Roundana, Vel\n Roundana, Gandhi Market, periyakada\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 8 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n Veethi, South Car Street, West Car Street)\n on 02.10.2022 at 4.25 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting on Theradi, Palani, from\n 6.00 p.m., to 8.00 p.m.24. W.P.No.25089 Ariyalur From Anna Statue, Ariyalur to Anna Statue,\n of 2022 Ariyalur (via Theradi bus stop, Chatram bus\n stop, Madha Kovil bus stop, Theradi) on\n 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting near Anna Statue, Ariyalur,\n from 5.00 p.m., and 7.00 p.m.25. W.P.No.25125 Urapakkam From Sri Sankara Vidhyalaya Matriculation\n of 2022 (Tambaram) Higher Secondary School, Urapakkam to\n Sri Sankara Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher\n Secondary School, Urapakkam (Via\n Iyyenchery Main Road, Karanai Puducherry\n Road, Palayathamman Kovil Street,\n Kanthan Street, Eswaran Kovil Street,\n Sokkathamman Kovil Steet) on 02.10.2022\n at 3.00 pm., and conduct a public meeting\n on Sri Sankara Vidyalaya Matriculation\n Higher Secondary School, Urapakkam,\n from 5.00 p.m., to 7.00 p.m.26. W.P.No.25130 Chinnamanur From Kannadi Kadai Junction,\n of 2022 (Theni) Chinnamanur to Kannadi kadai Junction,\n Chinnamanur (Via Muthalamman Kovil,\n Panchayat Union Office Road, Theni –\n Cumbum Highways, Santhi Mess,\n Agraharam) on 02.10.2022 at 4.15 p.m., and\n conduct a public meeting near Kannadi\n Kadai Junction, Chinnamannur, from 5.45\n p.m., to 7.45 p.m.27. W.P.No.25208 Arani From Dharumaraja Kovil Mythanam, Arani\n of 2022 to En Mahal, Vellore Road, Arani (via\n Chinakadai Street, Erikarasi Arasamaram,\n Anna Statue, Bazzar Road, Balaji\n Restaurant) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and\n conduct a public meeting at En Mahal,\n Arani, from 4.45 p.m., to 7.00 p.m.28. W.P.No.25213 Tiruvallur From Meera Theatre, Thiruvallur to\n of 2022 Venkateswara Matric School, Tiruvallur\n (via Nethaji Road, Perumal Kovil Street,\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 9 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n Vadukku Raja Street, Mothilal Street,\n Theradi, Kulakkarai Street) on 02.10.2022\n at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a public meeting\n at Venkateswara Matric School, Tiruvallur,\n from 5.00 p.m., to 7.00 p.m.29. W.P.No.25227 Ambur From Murugal Theatre, Ambur to Perumal\n of 2022 Kovil Ambur (Via Ambur bye pass road,\n Nethaji Road, Bazzar Road, S.K.Road) on\n 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting at Vallalar Madam, by pass\n road, Ambur, from 5.00 p.m., to 7.00 p.m.30. W.P.No.25234 Thoothukudi From Bharat Ratna Kamaraj Matric School\n of 2022 (near Kamaraj College, Thoothukudi to\n Chidambara Nagar (Maiyavadi) Stop,\n Thoothukudi (via Levinchipuram Water\n Tank, Briyant Nagar 4th Street, VVD Signal)\n on 02.10.2022 at 4.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public metting at Chidambara nagar\n (Maiyavadi) Stop, Thoothukudi, from 5.30\n p.m., to 7.30 p.m.31. W.P.No.25260 Thiruvanna From Krishnar Temple, Krishnan Street,\n of 2022 malai Tiruvannamalai to Amutha Thirumana\n Mandapam, Thiruvannamalai (Via\n Kattabomman Street, Ayyangulam Street,\n Ayyankula Agrakara Street, Sannathi Street,\n Car Street, Chinnakada Street) on\n 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting at Anna Statue,\n Thiruvannamalai, from 4.25 p.m., to 6.30\n p.m.32. W.P.No.25264 Ramanatha From Aranmani, Ramanathapuram to\n of 2022 puram Aranmani, Ramanathapuram (Via Sigil Raja\n Veethi, Kenikkarai Vazhivudu Murugan\n Temple, Vandikkara Street, Agraharam\n Road) on 02.10.2022 at 5.00 p.m., and\n conduct a public meeting near Aranmani,\n Ramanathapuram, from 6.30 p.m., to 8.30\n p.m.33. W.P.No.25270 Vellore From Sathuvachari Collector Office\n of 2022 Junction, Vellore to Anna Kalai Arangam,\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 10 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n Vellore. (Via Kakitha Pattarai, CMC\n Hospital, Mandi Street, Vempuli Amman\n Street, Builder butt Road) on 02.10.2022 at\n 5.00 p.m., and conduct a public meeting at\n Kottai Round Road, Vellore, from 6.00\n p.m., to 8.00 p.m.34. W.P.No.25273 Vedaranyam From Sri Varadharaja Perumal Temple,\n of 2022 Thopputhurai, Vedaranyam to South Main\n Street, West end, Vadaranyam (Viz Nagai\n Road, North Main Street, North main\n Street, East Main Street, South main Street)\n on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting at South Main Street West\n end, Vedaranyam, from 6.00 p.m., to 8.00\n p.m.35. W.P.No.25277 Karur From Light House, Karur to Light House,\n of 2022 Karur (via Light House Roundana, Old Bus\n Stand, Bama Medicals, New Bus Stand,\n Thinappa Theatre, G.H., Municipal Office,\n Dindigul corner) on 02.10.2022 at 5.00\n p.m., and conduct a public meeting at Light\n House Corner, Karur, from 6.00 p.m., to\n 8.00 p.m.\n 36 W.P.No.25393 Palladam From Angalamman Kovil opposite\n of 2022 Kosavanpalayam road, Palladam to N.G.R.\n Road, palladam (via Palladam Kovai Road,\n G.H., Axis Bank Street, New Extension\n Street, Veera Kumar Mahal, Vadugaplayam\n Road, Muniyaapan Kovil, Vetrinary\n Hospital, Palladam-Pollachi Road,\n Palladam 4 Road, Court Street, Post Office\n Street, Patel Street) on 02.10.2022 at 5.00\n p.m., and conduct a public meeting near\n N.G.R.Road, Palladam, from 6.00 p.m., to\n 8.00 p.m.,37. W.P.No.25396 Hosur From Bagalur, Hudco, Hosur to Appavu\n of 2022 Nagar, Hosur (Via Taluk Office Road, G.H.\n Tank Street, Ram Nagar 1st Cross, Thalli\n Road) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and\n conduct a public meeting at Exhibition\n ground, near V.J. Function Hall Thalli\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 11 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n Road, Hosur, from 5.00 p.m., to 7.30 p.m.38. W.P.No.25432 Gandharava From MRS Mandapam, Gandharvakottai to\n of 2022 kottai Vellaimuniswarar Kovil, Gandharvakottai\n (Via Karambakudi Road, Arulmari Matric\n School, Periyakadai Road, Bus stand, AIT\n Mandapam, Main Road) on 02.10.2022 at\n 5.00 p.m., and conduct a public meeting at\n Vellai Munishwarar Kovil, Gandharva\n kottai, from 6.00 p.m., to 8.00 p.m.39. W.P.No.25435 Alwar From Kallabiran Temple to VOC Thidal\n of 2022 Thiurnagari (Via Ambala Street, Sivan Koil Street,\n Yadav Street, Masi Street, Mutharamman\n Koil Street, on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and\n conduct a public meeting at VOC Thidal,\n from 6.00 p.m., to 8.00 p.m.40. W.P.No.25437 Thenkasi From North Chariot Street, Senai Thalaival\n of 2022 Primany School, Sankarankoil to Gandhi\n Statue (via Rajapalayam Main Road, State\n Bank, Thiruvallurvar Nagar, Geethalaya\n Theatre, Thiruvengadam Street, Raju\n Jinning Factory, Pudhu Manai Kazhugu\n Malai Road) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m.,\n and conduct a public meeting from 6.00\n p.m., to 8.00 p.m.\n 41 W.P.No.25438 Attur (Salem) From Old Bus stand, Attur to Ranipet\n of 2022 thidal, Attur (via Kadai Veethi,\n Thaiyumanavar Street, Arunagirinathar\n Street, Kamarajar Road, Sarada Pertrol\n bunk) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m., and\n conduct a public meeting at Ranipet thidal,\n Attur, from 5.00 p.m., to 7.00 p.m.\n 42 W.P.No.25440 Amba From Krishnan Kovil, Ambasamudram to\n of 2022 samudram Krishnan Kovil, Ambasamudram (via\n Pookadai Mukku, Pudhu Grammam Street,\n Thirumajanam Street, Nagaladi Street,\n Sankaran Kovil Road, Senkunthar Street,\n Palapannai Street, College Road, North Car\n Street, East Car Street) on 02.10.2022 at\n 4.25 p.m., and conduct a public meeting\n near Krishnan Kovil, Ambasamudram, from\n 6.00 p.m., to 8.00 p.m.\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 12 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings43. W.P.No.25541 Nilagiri From Race View Road (near Mahindra and\n of 2022 Mahindra – Derby Green) Ettines Road,\n Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris to Gandhi\n Maidhan, Ettines Road, Udhagamandalam,\n The Nilgiris (Via Central Bus Stand, Main\n Bazaar Road, Blue Mountain Circle,\n Commerical Road, Charring Cross Junction\n (Gandhiji Statue) Charring Cross Post\n Office, Ettines Road) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00\n p.m., and conduct a public meeting near\n Gandhi Maidhan, from 6.00 p.m., to 8.00\n p.m.44. W.P.No.25442 Arumanai From Aided Higher Secondary School,\n of 2022 (Kanya Arumanai to V.T.M. Arts and Science\n kumari) College Kanchuluvilai, Arumanai (Via\n Arumanai Junction, Mela Theru,\n Kanchuluvilai) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00 p.m.,\n and conduct a public meeting V.T.M.Arts\n and Science College, Kanchuluvilai,\n Arumanai, from 5.00 to 7.00 p.m.\n 45 W.P.No.25445 Nagercoil From Nagaraja Thidal, Nagarcoil to S.T.\n of 2022 Hindu College, Nagercoil, (Via Head Post\n Office, Tower junction, Veppumoodu\n junction, Chettikulam junction) on\n 02.10.2022 at 4.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting at S.T.Hindu College,\n Nagercoil, from 5.30 p.m., to 7.30 p.m.\n 46 W.P.No.25447 Kallakurichi From V.A.S.Mahal, Kallakurichi to\n of 2022 Mandhavali, Kallakurichi (Via Salem Main\n Road, Kadai Veethi, Kulathu Mettu Street,\n Gandhi Road, Kachirayapalayam road,\n Krishnar Kovil Street, Chithery Street,\n Gramchavedi Street) on 02.10.2022 at 3.00\n p.m., and conduct a public meeting at\n Mandhavali, Kallakurichi, from 5.00 p.m.,\n to 7.00 p.m.\n 47 W.P.No.25570 Gudalur From Satthuvachari Collector Office\n of 2022 Junction, Vellore to Anna kalai Arangam,\n Vellore (Viz Kakitha Pattarai, CMC\n Hospital, Mandi Srteet, Vempuli Amman\n Street, Builder Butt Road) on 02.10.2022 at\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 13 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n Sl.No Writ Petition Place Route & timings\n 5.00 p.m., and conduct a public meeting at\n Kottai Round Road, Vellore, from 6.00\n p.m., to 8.00 p.m.48. W.P.No.25574 Mettupalayam From Padhmalaya Garden to Abirami\n of 2022 Theatre (via Mahadeva Puram, Kattur,\n Sivam Theatre, Five Corner Bus Stand) on\n 02.10.2022 at 5.00 p.m., and conduct a\n public meeting from 4.00 p.m., to 5.00 p.m.49. W.P.No.25579 Sivagangai From Vathiyar Ayya Temple to Seerani\n of 2022 Arangam (Viz Karaikudi Road, Koothadhi\n Amman Koil Street, New Colony,\n Vinayagar Temple, Keelakapu Road,\n Keezha Theru, Chetti Oorani, Chandhi\n Veera Koodam, Mangala Vinayakar Street,\n Behind Post Office, RMS Hospital, G.H\n Road, Dindigul Main Road, via Sundar\n Nagar Arch, 4 Roads) on 02.10.2022 at 5.00\n p.m., and conduct a public meeting from\n 4.00 p.m., to 5.00 p.m.\n\n Since the above representations are not considered, the petitioners\n\n approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petitions.5. It is relevant to extract the provisions underSection 41of\n\n the Act, as follows :-“41. Power to regulate assemblies, meetings and\n processions in public places, etc.- (1) The\n Commissioner, or subject to his orders, any Police-\n officer above the rank of head constable may, from time\n to time, as occasion may require direct the conduct of all\n assemblies, meetings and processions in public places;\n prescribe the routes by which and the times at which\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 14 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n such processions may pass; keep order in public places\n and prevent obstructions on the occasion of such\n assemblies, meetings and processions, and in the\n neighbourhood of places of worship during the time of\n public worship and in any case when public places may\n be thronged or liable to be obstructed; and may licence\n and regulate or prohibit the use of music or of sound\n amplifiers in any area.................................41A. Power to prohibit drill or training by five or\n more persons, etc. - (1) (a) The Commissioner may,\n whenever he considers it necessary so to do for the\n preservation of the public peace or public safety or for\n the maintenance of public order, by order in writing,\n prohibit the holding of, or taking part in, any drill with\n arms or training with arms by five or more persons in\n any place, whether public or private, or the carrying of\n arms in any procession.(b) The Commissioner may, whenever he considers it\n necessary so to do for the preservation of the public\n peace or public safety or for the maintenance of public\n order, by order in writing, prohibit -(i) the use of gestures or mimetic representations or\n playing of tapes or gramophone records or other\n instruments in which speeches or songs are recorded, or\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 15 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.(ii) the preparation, exhibition or dissemination of\n pictures, symbols, play cards, signs, visible\n representations or any other object or thing, which may,\n in the opinion of the Commissioner, offend against\n decency or morality, or promote on ground of religion,\n race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or\n community or any other ground whatsoever,\n disharmony, feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will\n between different religious, racial, language or regional\n groups or castes or communities.(2) No prohibition under this section shall remain in\n force for more than three months:Provided that if the State Government consider it\n necessary so to do for the preservation of the public\n peace or public safety or for the maintenance of public\n order, they may, by notification, direct that the order\n issued under subsection (1) shall remain in force for\n such further period not exceeding six months from the\n date on which such order would have, but for such\n notification, expired, as they may specify in the said\n notification.(3) Whoever contravenes any prohibition made under\n this section shall, on conviction, be liable to\n imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months\n and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 16 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n (4) Nothing contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1)\n shall apply to -(i) the holding of, or taking part in, any drill with arms\n or training with arms held by the, -(a) members of Home Guards;(b) members of Bharat Scouts and Guides in their\n capacity as such members;(c) Police personnel;(d) Fire Service personnel;(e) Jail Service personnel;(f) members of the Armed Forces of the Union including\n the National Cadet Corps; or(ii) the doing of any physical exercise other than drill\n with arms or training with arms.(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section,\n if the State Government are satisfied that it is necessary\n or expedient in the public interest so to do, they may, by\n notification, exempt, subject to such conditions as they\n deem fit, any person or class of persons from the\n provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this section.\n Explanation. - For the purposes of this section "arms"\n means any type of offensive weapon and includes lathi\n and stick.”\n Thus, it is clear that the power to prohibit drill training as assembly or\n procession is available only to the Commissioner underSection 41(2)of\n the Act. It is also restricted by the proviso there under.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 17 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.6. It is also relevant to extract the provisions underSection\n\n 30(2)of the Police Act, as follows:-“30. Regulation of public assemblies and\n processions and licensing of the same:- (l) The District\n Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of\n Police may, as occasion required, direct the conduct of\n all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in\n the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the\n routes by which, and the times at which, such\n processions may pass. (2) He may also, on being\n satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of\n persons to convene or collect an assembly in any such\n road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession\n which would, in the judgment of the Magistrate of the\n district, or of the sub-division of a district, if\n uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace,\n require by general or special notice that the persons\n convening or collecting such assembly or directing or\n promoting such procession shall apply for a license. (3)\n On such application being made, he may issue a license,\n specifying the names of the licensees and defining the\n conditions on which alone such assembly or such\n procession is to be permitted to take place, and\n otherwise giving effect to this section: Provided that no\n fee shall be charged on the application for, or grant of\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 18 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n any such license. (4) Music in the streets:- He may also\n regulate the extent to which music may be used in streets\n on the occasion of festivals and ceremonies.]\n COMMENTS The police is empowered to regulate public\n assemblies and processions and licensing of the same.\n Violation of any of conditions of the license granted\n under this section will entail penalty postulated by\n section 32.30A. Powers with regard to assemblies and\n processions violating conditions of licence:- (l) Any\n Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or\n Assistant District Superintendent of Police or Inspector\n of Police or any police-officer in charge of a station may\n stop any procession which violates the conditions of a\n license granted under the last foregoing section, and\n may order it or any assembly, which violates any such\n conditions, as aforesaid, to disperse. (2) Any procession\n or assembly which neglects or refuses to obey any order\n given under the last preceding sub-section, shall be\n deemed to be an unlawful assembly.”7. While this Court dealing with the similar matter in the batch\n\n of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.28677 of 2014 etc., by an order dated\n\n 07.11.2014 held that as per the provisions underSection 41(3)(a)of the\n\n Chennai City Police Act, a person intending to take out a procession,\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 19 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n may make an application to the Commissioner seeking permission, even\n\n it a prohibitory order is in force underSection 41(2)of the Act. As perSection 41(3)(b)of the Act, the grant of permission for convening an\n\n assembly or meeting and promoting a procession, is the rule and the\n\n refusal of permission is the exception. Both the provisions do not confer\n\n any power upon the police to issue an order prohibiting any assembly or\n\n procession. It merely enable the District Superintendent of Police to\n\n require by a general or special notice, all persons who want to hold an\n\n assembly or organise a procession, to apply for a licence.8. All the petitioners sought for permission to take out\n\n procession and to conduct public meeting. Therefore, they do not fall\n\n under the category, those where a right is claimed as an essential part of\n\n the profession of any religion, since the petitioners do not claim that they\n\n seek to take out a procession as an essential part of any religious rite.Further the respondents are kept the petitions for seeking permission to\n\n conduct procession and public meeting pending without passing any\n\n orders for the past nearly one month.9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mazdoor\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 20 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs. The Union of India and anrin\n\n W.P.(Civil)No.1153 of 2017 by an order dated 23.07.2018 held that the\n\n fundamental right of the citizens to hold peaceful demonstrations and\n\n protest in order to bring out their grievances to the notice of the\n\n authorities in power so that the concerned authorities are awakened and\n\n attend to their grievances as well as take remedial measures. Therefore,\n\n there could not have been a complete ban on demonstration in the area in\n\n question. Undoubtedly, holding peaceful demonstration by the citizen in\n\n order to air its grievances and to ensure that these grievances are heard in\n\n the relevant quarters, is its fundamental right. This right is specifically\n\n enshrined underArticle 19(1)(a)and19(1)(b)of the Constitution of\n\n India. It confers a vary valuable right on the citizens viz., right of free\n\n speech and it gives right to assemble peacefully without arms.10. Insofar as the Union Territory of Puducherry is concerned,\n\n the Superintendent of Police (East), Puducherry by an order dated\n\n 16.09.2022 granted permission with certain conditions. The petitioners\n\n also under take before this Court that they will abide any conditions as\n\n imposed by this Court.11. In view of the above order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 21 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n Court of India as well as various orders passed by this Court, it would be\n\n appropriate to direct the respondents to grant permission to conduct\n\n procession and to conduct public meeting on 02.10.2022 at various\n\n places subject to the following conditions on or before 28.09.2022:-i. During the program, nobody shall either sign songs or speak ill on\n\n any individuals, any caste, religion, etc.,\n\n ii. Those who participate in the program shall not for any reason talk\n\n or express anything in favour of organizations banned by\n\n Government of India. They should also not indulge in any act\n\n disturbing the sovereignty and integrity of our country.iii. The program should be conducted without causing any hindrance\n\n to public or traffic.iv. The participants shall not bring any stick, lathi or weapon that may\n\n cause injury to any one.v. The organizer(s) shall make adequate arrangements for drinking\n\n water and proper First Aid/Ambulance/Mobile Toilets/CCTV\n\n Cameras/Fire Fighting equipments etc., in consultation with the\n\n Police/Civic/Local Bodies as directed by the police.vi. The procession shall proceed in any orderly manner along the\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 22 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n sanctioned route keeping to the left and shall not halt on the way\n\n or cause impediment to the normal flow of traffic. The procession\n\n shall occupy only one-fourth of the road.vii.The organizer(s) shall keep sufficient volunteers to help the police\n\n for regulation of traffic and the participants.viii.The organizer(s) of procession/rally shall be responsible for\n\n ensuring that the route permitted to them by the Police Authorities\n\n is strictly followed.ix. Only box type speakers should be used and output of the speakers\n\n should not exceed 15 watts ad within a radius of 30 meters only.Cone Speakers should not be used at any cost.x. In the procession, the processionists shall not any manner offend\n\n the sentiments of any religious, linguistics, cultural and other\n\n groups.xi. An undertaking to reimburse the cost for any damage that may\n\n occur enroute to any public/private property and an undertaking to\n\n bear the compensation/replacement costs as well, if are to be\n\n awarded to any other institution/person, who may apply for the\n\n same.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 23 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n xii.If there is violation of any one of the conditions imposed, the\n\n concerned police officer is at liberty to take necessary action, as\n\n per law12. With the above directions, all the Writ petitions are disposed\n\n of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There\n\n shall be no order as to costs.22.09.2022\n (1/3)\n\n Internet: Yes\n Index : Yes/No\n Speaking/Non Speaking order\n\n rts\n\n Note: Issue order copy on or\n before 26.09.2022\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 24 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n\n\n To1. The Secretary,\n State of Tamil Nadu,\n Home Department,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai – 600 009.2. The Director General of Police,\n Post Box No.601,\n Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,\n Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.3. The Superintendent of Police,\n Cuddalore District,\n Cuddalore – 607 001.4. The Inspector of Police,\n Cuddalore New Town Police Station,\n Cuddalore – 607 001.5. The Public prosecutor,\n Madras High Court,\n Chennai.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 25 of 26W.P.Nos.24540 of 2022 etc.\n\n\n\n G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,\n\n rts\n\n\n\n\n W.P.No.24540 of 2022 etc.,\n\n\n\n\n 22.09.2022\n (1/3)\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 26 of 26 |
97af66ce-74cc-55f3-a724-7251bc862fb0 | court_cases | Delhi High CourtAlliance Of Digital India ... vs Competition Commission Of India & ... on 24 April, 2023Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n % Judgment reserved on: 19.04.2023\n Judgment delivered on: 24.04.2023\n\n + W.P.(C) 4599/2023 & CM APPL. 17575/2023\n ALLIANCE OF DIGITAL INDIA FOUNDATION\n ..... Petitioners\n versus\n\n COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS\n ..... Respondent\n\n Advocates who appeared in this case:\n For the Petitioner: Mr. Abir Roy, Mr. T Sundar Ramanathan,\n Mr. Vivek Pandey, Mr. Aman Shankar &\n Ms. SukanyaViswanathan, Advocates\n\n For the Respondents : Mr. N. Venkataraman, ASG with Ms.\n Aakanksha Kaul and Ms. Versha Singh,\n Advocates for R-1.\n\n Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Advocate with Mr.\n Karan Singh Chandhiok, Ms. Avaantika\n Kakkar, Ms. Deeksha Manchanda, Mr.\n Kaustav Kundu, Ms. Ruchi Verma, Mr.\n Tarun Donadi, Ms. Bhavika Chabbra, Ms.\n Raksha Agarwal, Mr. Vijayendra Pratap\n Singh, Ms. Sayobani Basu & Mr. Abhisar\n Vidyarthi, Advocates for R-2 to 5.\n\n Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms.\n Sonam Mathur, Ms. Dinoo Muthappa, Mr.\n Abir Roy, Mr. Dhruv Dikshit, Mr. Vivek\n Pandey, Mr. Anchit Nayyar, Mr. Aman\n Shankar and Ms. Sukanya Viswanathan,\n Advocates for R-6 [Match Group Inc.].\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMAR\n W.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 1 of 38\nSigning Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. J USTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA\n\n JUDGMENTTUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the\n following prayers:-"a) Hold that the CCI can validly invoke doctrine of\n necessity in this case for initiating non-compliance\n proceedings against Google and issue an appropriate\n order/ direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to\n Respondent no. 1 for timely adjudication of the interim\n relief application and the application under Section 42 of\n the Competition Act, 2002, as filed by the Petitioner;\n regarding non-effective compliance by Google of the\n CCI's final order dated 25.10.2022 and to keep UCB's\n implementation in abeyance till the adjudication by the\n CCI, and/or;b) Issue an appropriate order/ direction providing\n interim relief to the Petitioner, directing the Respondent\n No. 2 to 5 to keep the implementation of Google's UCB in\n abeyance, pending adjudication by the CCI on\n Petitioners application and maintain the status quo (i.e\n no commission is to be charged when transaction happen\n via other payment processors mode (non GPBS mode) as\n it exists now"2. The following facts shorn of all unnecessary details and\n germane and relevant to decide the dispute are as under:-2.1 On 20.02.2020, an anonymous informant filed an information\n before the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 2 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n as "CCI") underSection 19of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter\n referred to as "Act") against Respondent No. 2 - 5 (collectively\n referred to as 'Google') (First Information). The CCI registered the\n First Information as Case No. 07 of 2020.2.2 Thereafter, on 09.11.2020, the CCI issued a prima facie order\n underSection 26(1)of the Act in Case No. 7 of 2020 directing the\n Office of the Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation\n against Google.2.3 Subsequently, on 29.06.2021, a second informant (Match\n Group Inc.) (Respondent No. 6 herein) filed information before the\n CCI against Google under Section 19 of the Act (Second\n Information). The Commission registered the Second Information as\n Case No. 14 of 2021. The same was followed by an application for\n interim relief filed by Alliance of Digital India Foundation (Petitioner)\n against Google on 06.10.2021 (First IRA) in Case No. 07 of 2020 and\n Case No. 14 of 2021, seeking ad-interim relief restraining Google\n from implementing its Payments Policy underSection 33of the Act.2.4 That thereafter, on 18.10.2021, Petitioner filed an information\n against Google under Section 19 of the Act (Third Information). The\n CCI registered the Third Information as Case No. 35 of 2021, which\n was finally clubbed by with Case Nos. 07 of 2020, 14 of 2021 vide its\n Order dated 02.11.2021.Signature Not Verified\n 2.5 Consequently, from 16.03.2022 till 01.09.2022, the proceedings\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 3 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n of these cases moved in full swing by filing of an investigation report\n by the DG, which was subsequently followed by its response filed by\n Google, and the detailed hearings conducted thereafter by the CCI. All\n such proceedings reached its final conclusion by CCI and the matters\n were reserved for orders.2.6 After the conclusion of CCI oral hearings and when the final\n order was reserved, Google swiftly announced a user choice billing\n (UCB) pilot program for non-gaming app developers in India on\n 01.09.2022.2.7 The CCI passed the final order in Case No. 07 of 2020, 14 of\n 2021 and 35 of 2021, which was challenged by Respondent Nos. 2 to\n 5 by filing a statutory appeal before the National Company Law\n Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).2.8 Therein, Google, on 25.01.2023, submitted its Compliance\n Report on its supposed implementation of the eight remedial\n directions given by the CCI.2.9 To the said Compliance Report filed by Google, Petitioner filed\n three applications, one after the other, underSection 42of the Act,\n before the CCI, mainly for causing an inquiry into the compliance\n report filed by Google alongwith certain other prayers. That all such\n applications filed before CCI on 31.01.2023, 06.03.2023, 28.03.2023\n underSection 42of the Act are still impending adjudication till date.Signature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 4 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n FACTS AS PER THE PETITIONER GIVING RISE TO\n APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE ACT:3. The petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the\n applications filed by the petitioner underSection 42of the Act\n allegedly aggrieved by the non-compliance/violation of the Final\n Order dated 25.10.2022 passed by learned CCI, have not been\n adjudicated despite the urgent nature of reliefs sought.4. The petitioner states that the applications underSection 42of\n the Act have been necessitated since the directions passed by the CCI\n vide the Final Order dated 25.10.2022 have been contravened in a\n veiled manner, in that, the directions of the CCI to respondent nos. 2\n to 5 to not create and launch an alternate billing system to the already\n existing billing system i.e. Google Pay, so as to ensure that the\n consumers and digital app developers like the petitioners have\n alternate methods of payment system, is being violated. According to\n the petitioner, the respondent nos. 2 to 5, though, are about to launch\n the User Choice Billing System (hereinafter referred to as "UCB\n System"), the said alternate bill paying system is a sham and the said\n respondents have not materially altered original commission system\n which was found to be discriminatory, keeping in view the finding\n that respondent nos. 2 to 5 are in a dominant position in the arena of\n Android ecosystem.5. Petitioner apprehends that the proposed official launch of the\n UCB System will render the Final Order dated 25.10.2022 otiose\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 5 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n since under the garb of UCB System, Google is continuing with the\n very discriminatory practices which have been frowned upon by the\n CCI.6. Mr. Abir Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner\n submits that upon an information provided by the petitioner and\n respondent no.6 to the CCI, by virtue of the powers conferred underSection 19of the Act, it conducted an inquiry and had rendered the\n judgment, after investigations, vide its Final Order dated 25.10.2022.7. The directions of the CCI are encapsulated in paragraph 395 of\n its Final Order dated 25.10.2022.8. According to Mr. Roy, the respondents nos. 2 to 5 were\n directed to allow and not restrict app developers from using any third\n party billing/payment processing services, either for in-app purchases\n or for purchasing apps, coupled with the fact that the respondents\n were also directed not to discriminate or otherwise take any adverse\n measures against such apps using third party billing/payment\n processing services, in any manner.9. Learned counsel also submits that apart from prohibitive\n directions, respondent nos. 2 to 5 were also directed to not impose any\n condition (including price related condition) on app developers, which\n would be unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory or disproportionate to\n the services provided to the app developers. That apart, the\n respondents were also directed to ensure complete transparency in\n communicating to app developers, services provided and\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 6 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n corresponding fee charged. In fact, the respondents were also to\n publish, in an unambiguous manner, the payment policy and criteria\n for applicability of the fee(s).10. Mr. Roy, learned counsel submits that despite such clear,\n unambiguous and prohibitive directions, respondent nos. 2 to 5 did not\n comply with such directions and in fact, violated the directions passed\n by the CCI. Learned counsel submits that it was on the basis of such\n violations that the necessity of filing of applications underSection 42of the Act arose and was preferred by the petitioner before the CCI.11. Learned counsel submits that though the applications were\n filed, till date the same are pending and not adjudicated upon by the\n CCI despite the extreme urgency in the nature of such applications.\n Learned counsel submits that the urgency for which the petitioner has\n preferred the present petition is that respondent nos. 2 to 5 are about to\n launch the UCB system on 26.04.2023 whereafter the applications\n underSection 42of the Act, may well become infructuous.12. Learned counsel further submits that keeping in view the\n aforesaid urgency and given the nature of violations/non-compliance\n of clear and unambiguous directions by the CCI, as also keeping in\n view that the said applications are not being adjudicated by the CCI,\n that the present petition, claiming the aforesaid relief of either\n directing the CCI to hear the applications and decide them\n expeditiously or in the alternative, restrain the respondent nos. 2 to 5\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 7 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n from launching UCB system till the CCI decides the aforesaid\n applications, has been filed.13. On a pertinent question put across by the Court as to whether\n the prayer (b) could be maintainable before this Court without the CCI\n first coming to the conclusion as to whether any violation at all of its\n direction dated 25.10.2022 has occurred, the learned counsel submits\n that the petitioner would be satisfied in case this Court considers grant\n of prayer (a) and has thus, restricted his arguments.14. Consequently, this Court had requested all the counsel to\n restrict their arguments and assist the Court with respect to prayer (a)\n only.15. It has been informed by the parties that the CCI is now\n functioning only with two members and the appointment of the\n Chairperson to the CCI is awaited, which has been confirmed by the\n Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned ASG.ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER :16. At the outset, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner\n submits that the interpretation ofSection 15of the Act, insofar as the\n CCI is concerned, is no more res integra in view of the fact that this\n Court inCadd Systems and Services Private Limited vs. Competition\n Commission of Indiareported in AIR 2019 Del 194, categorically\n has, after examining the decision inMahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs.\n Competition Commission of Indiareported in 2019 SCC OnLine\n Del 8032 as also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 8 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n Court inB.K. Srinivasan and Others vs. State of Karnataka and\n Othersreported in (1987) 1 SCC 658 andState of Gujarat vs. Utility\n Users Welfare Associationreported in (2018) 6 SCC 21, concluded,\n after examining the provisions ofSection 15of the Act, that the said\n provisions amply make it clear that no act or proceedings of CCI\n would be invalid by reason of any vacancy or defect in its\n Constitution.17. Learned counsel submits that as a result of the aforesaid\n observation, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cadd Systems\n (supra) concluded that notwithstanding that a judicial member is\n required to be appointed at CCI, the order passed by CCI cannot be\n called into question.18. Learned counsel heavily relied upon the aforesaid judgment to\n submit that in the present case, the ratio laid down in Cadd Systems\n (supra) applied on all fours and keeping in view the urgency, the CCI\n ought to be directed to adjudicate the applications underSection 42as\n expeditiously as possible, preferably before 26.04.2023.19. Mr. Roy, learned counsel also relied heavily upon the judgment\n of the Coordinate Bench of this Court inMylan Laboratories Limited\n vs. Union of Indiareported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9070 to submit\n that the learned Single Judge had applied the Doctrine of Necessity\n keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inElection Commission of India vs. Dr Subramaniam Swamyreported\n in (1996) 4 SCC 104 holding that the Doctrine of Necessity has to be\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 9 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n applied in such circumstances where the only way is to promote\n decision making rather than interdicting a judicial dispensation.20. Learned counsel relies upon Paras 26,38,39 of the judgment of\n learned Single Judge in Mylan Laboratories (supra) and fairly\n submits that the judgment in Mylan Laboratories (supra) was\n rendered in respect of Intellectual Properties Appellate Board\n particularlySection 84(2)of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, regarding the\n constitution of its bench.21. Learned counsel has also placed on record a compilation of\n judgments which have also been considered.ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 522. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of\n respondents nos. 4 and 5 and vehemently opposes the submissions\n made by the petitioner. According to Mr. Sethi, learned senior\n counsel,Section 8of the Act decides the composition of the\n Commission. Referring to sub-Section 1 of Section 8 of the Act, Mr.\n Sethi submits that by the usage of the word "shall", the legislative\n intent is to ensure that the Commission would necessarily consist of a\n Chairperson and not less than two and not more than six other\n members makes it clear that the minimum quorum for composition of\n a competent commission would be minimum of three Members,\n including the Chairperson.Signature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 10 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:272023. Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel submits that any constitution\n less than three would therefore, be violative of provisions of sub-\n Section (1) ofSection 8of the Act. Mr. Sethi submits that at present,\n admittedly, there are only two members and the Chairperson is yet to\n be appointed. On that basis, Mr. Sethi submits that the Commission is\n incapable of adjudicating the application underSection 42filed by the\n petitioner.24. Dilating further on sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the Act, Mr.\n Sethi submits that employment of the word "not less than two" is\n couched in negative language and would imply that the composition\n of the Commission cannot be less than two members and the\n Chairperson, in all, three members. Learned counsel further submits in\n a novel argument that vacancy in the Commission could be between\n upwards of 4 to 7 and anything less than 7 uptil 4 alone would be\n considered to be a vacancy. This argument is predicated on the\n provisions ofSection 15of the Act where under sub-section (a), the\n word "vacancy" has been employed. In other words, according to Mr.\n Sethi, learned Senior Counsel, the word "vacancy" employed inSection 15, would refer to any vacancy in the Constitution of CCI, if\n such vacancy is on account of vacancy of Members beyond the\n minimum constitution of 3 Members, including the Chairperson.25. Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel now invites attention of this\n Court toSection 22of the Act to submit that as per sub-section 3and\n primarily the proviso thereto, the "quorum" as prescribed for the\n\nSignature Not Verified\n purpose of meeting of the commission underSection 22, comprises\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 11 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n three members. Learned senior counsel submits that proviso to\n Section would be read as an exception to the main Section, in that, the\n quorum prescribed to be consisting of three members only, would be\n deemed to be mandatory and any quorum comprising less than three\n members would be invalid.26. Learned senior counsel further submits that reading ofSections\n 8,15and22harmoniously, would bring to fore that the quorum of the\n CCI, even in adjudicatory process, has to be not less than three\n members. Learned senior counsel further submits that the legislative\n intent is clear and cannot be interpreted in any manner other than to\n uphold that the minimum quorum for a valid constitution of the\n Commission has to be necessarily three members, including the\n Chairperson.27. Learned senior counsel further submits that this mandate would\n be across the board, whether in respect of any act or proceeding of the\n Commission as stipulated underSection 15of the Act.28. In aid of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel also\n submits that the regulations to provide for such procedure is\n conspicuous by the absence of any provision in respect of the quorum\n to be constituted. Therefore, in his submission, if a statute provides for\n it, the Court need not look for any rule or regulation to provide for\n such quorum.29. So far asSection 15is concerned, Mr. Sethi submits that the\n vacancy referred to in that section, is obviously a vacancy which is in\n excess of the quorum as legislated, i.e., a vacancy beyond a minimum\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 12 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n quorum of three members including the Chairperson. In other words,\n learned senior counsel submits that no business can be transacted by a\n quorum consisting of less than three members. Mr. Sethi would prefer\n the Court reads the vacancy to be only beyond three members.30. Mr. Sethi, Learned senior counsel, drawing analogy from\n provisions in other acts similar toSection 15of the Act, relies upon\n the judgments of Dr. Manbodh Pandey & Anr. Versus Chancellor\n and others reported in 1990 SCC OnLine All 508, Order dated\n 17.10.2019 by learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in Second\n Appeal Stamp No. 14061 of 2019 titled asLarsen and Toubro\n Limited vs. Ms. Rekha Sinha, andJanta Land Promoters Private\n Limited vs. Union of India and Othersreported in 2020 SCC\n OnLine P&H 2030, and largely submits that the quorum cannot be a\n matter of procedure when the same is prescribed by the statute itself.\n Minimum members of such a quorum cannot, as a matter of\n procedure, overcome the issue of the inherent lack of jurisdiction as\n contemplated and prescribed by the statute itself which is thus similar\n to facts in the present case and thus, even theSection 15of the Act\n cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner for directing the CCI to\n pass orders when there is lack of jurisdiction as provided in the Act\n itself.31. While relying uponLachmi Narain vs. Union of Indiareported in (1976) 2 SCC 953,Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar\n Pradeshreported in AIR 1962 SC 1621 and State of Andhra Pradesh\n and Another vs. Dr. Mohanjit Singh and Another reported in 1988\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 13 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n (Supp) SCC 562, he further emphasizes on the language ofSection\n 22of the Act and submits that the same is couched in a peremptory,\n negative and mandatory nature while using the word "shall" for a\n Commission to be called as properly constituted Commission. He\n further submits that orders passed by a quorum lacking the inherent\n jurisdiction as prescribed by the statute cannot be ratified later by a\n subsequent acts or any provision thereto. In that, he submits that there\n is a rationale behind prescribing a quorum for the adjudicatory process\n to have a comprehensive interaction between the members of the\n quorum and the same cannot be efficiently achieved due to such\n inherent lack of jurisdiction when the quorum is not complete.32. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, Mr. Sethi, learned senior\n counsel submits as under:-(a) If the quorum is not complete, in that, comprising of three\n members, the rationale of decision is lost.(b) The lack of quorum, i.e., less than three members would\n tantamount to lack of jurisdiction of the CCI to decide the\n dispute.(c) If the CCI is not properly constituted, it yet again has no\n jurisdiction to decide any issue.33. So far as the Doctrine of Necessity is concerned, learned senior\n counsel submits that such doctrine was not developed and propagated\n to violate the specific provisions of law, in that, as per the mandate ofSection 8read withSection 22of the Act, a minimum quorum of three\n members, including the Chairperson, to conduct its business as per the\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 14 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n Act. Clarifying further, learned senior counsel submits that the\n Doctrine of Necessity cannot be a Rule of Law nor can be used as an\n answer to the lack of quorum as legislated by the Act. According to\n Mr. Sethi, Doctrine of Necessity would arise only in a situation where\n the quorum though complete, yet is found to be defective due to a\n member's disqualification and does not arise when the composition or\n quorum of the CCI is less than three members.34. Mr. Sethi submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner on\n Mylan Laboratories (supra) does not come to the aid of the petitioner\n since in that particular case, the quorum as stipulated under the IPAB\n rules, was otherwise complete.35. Learned senior counsel submits that the Doctrine of Necessity\n is not an elixir for all ailments of defect of vacancy or the constitution\n of CCI. Mr. Sethi submits that even otherwise, in the given facts of\n the present case, there is no urgency.36. Learned senior counsel submits that the applications underSection 42of the Act filed by the petitioner are predicated on an\n unsound and unfounded allegation on the respondent of not having\n complied with the directions of CCI vide the Final Order dated\n 25.10.2022. In fact, according to Mr. Sethi, the petitioners have not\n even challenged the Final Order dated 25.10.2022 and it is only the\n respondents nos. 2 to 5 have challenged certain findings of the same,\n even though they have complied with the directions so far as UCB\n system is concerned.Signature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 15 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:272037. Learned senior counsel further submits thatSection 42of the\n Act does not authorize, in any case, the CCI to pass any interim\n orders. It is only in case an inquiry underSection 19of the Act is\n pending adjudication, that the powers to pass interim orders underSection 33of the Act can be invoked.38. Predicated on the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sethi submits that\n the applications underSection 42of the Act are a gross abuse of the\n process of law and do not attract the Doctrine of Necessity.39. Touching lightly upon the merits of the case, Mr. Sethi submits\n that so far as the challenge to the charges levied by the respondent\n nos. 2 to 5 is concerned, there is no finding against the respondent\n nos. 2 to 5 nor in favour of the petitioner as to whether such charges\n are discriminatory or restrictive in its nature. Having not challenged\n the said findings, which are favourable to the respondents, the said\n findings become final and binding against the petitioner, and that\n coupled with the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the Final\n Order dated 25.10.2022, the averments in application underSection\n 42of the Act amounts to re-agitating an issue which is no more res\n integra. In other words, the petitioner is trying to re-agitate what was\n not only final but actually rejected by the CCI in its Final Order.40. Referring to paragraphs 326 and 327 as also paragraphs 395.1\n of the Final Order dated 25.10.2022, Mr. Sethi submits that so far as\n such directions were concerned, respondent no.2 to 5 have already\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 16 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n implemented and complied the same by virtue of the intending launch\n of UCB Pilot System on 26.04.2023.41. Learned senior counsel also submits that having said that, the\n respondents have challenged the directions contained in the Final\n Order dated 25.10.2022 before the NCLAT.42. On an overall conspectus, Mr. Sethi submits that the present\n petition is devoid of any merit, is an abuse of the process of law and\n ought to be dismissed in limine with exemplary cost.ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 343. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel appears on behalf\n of respondent Nos. 2 & 3. At the outset, learned senior counsel draws\n attention of this Court to the prayer made in the writ petition to submit\n that:-(a) The doctrine of necessity is invoked against an institution\n and not in respect of a particular case.(b) There is no material on record placed by the petitioner\n which would lead this Court to believe that the doctrine of\n necessity is to be invoked.(c) The petitioner was already aware that the User Choice\n Billing (UCB) System was already launched.44. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is aware that\n on merits, so far as the charges are concerned, the CCI had given a\n finding in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the same was never\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 17 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n challenged by the petitioner by filing a statutory appeal thereagainst.\n He submits that having not challenged the said finding, now to\n challenge the same by way of the present writ petition or even the\n application underSection 42of the Act would amount to re-agitation\n of an issue which have been decided by the CCI. On that basis,\n learned senior counsel submits that the observations and findings\n reached by the CCI is final and binding upon the petitioner. Thus,\n neither the application underSection 42of the Act nor the present\n petition is maintainable either on facts or on law.45. Buttressing the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel,\n invited attention of this Court to Paras 327, 398, 399 and 400 of the\n Final Order dated 25.10.2022 passed by the CCI. Learned senior\n counsel submits that considering the findings reached and mentioned\n in the aforesaid paragraphs and having not challenged the same, the\n filing of the application underSection 42is a bogey raised by the\n petitioner in order to pre-empt the respondents from launching the\n UCB Pilot System on 26.04.2023.46. Learned senior counsel also submits that the fee was always a\n part of the monetization model which the petitioner was aware of and\n keeping in view of the aforesaid finding of facts, and not having\n raised an issue of the fee charged, the petitioner was precluded from\n now raising the false issue on that basis.47. Learned senior counsel, however, further submits that in fact it\n is by virtue of the UCB System, that the penalty levied against the\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 18 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n respondents by CCI was decreased by it, from 10% to 7%. On that\n basis, learned senior counsel submits that, had there been any\n discrimination as alleged by the petitioner in launching UCB System,\n the CCI would not have decreased the penalty.48. Learned senior counsel had referred to the judgment ofThe\n Punjab University, Chandigarh vs. Vijay Singh Lamba and Othersreported in (1976) 3 SCC 344. Drawing strength therefrom, Mr.\n Poovayya, learned senior counsel submits, by referring toSection 22of the Act, that the Members as stipulated to be a minimum of three,\n cannot be reduced to a number below three to constitute a valid\n Commission. For the same reason, learned senior counsel also relied\n upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case ofJ.\n Mohapatra and Co. and Another vs. State of Orissa and Another,\n reported in (1984) 4 SCC 103, particularly to paragraph 12 in respect\n of the ratio laid down regarding what would constitute doctrine of\n necessity.49. According to Mr. Poovayya, the doctrine of necessity cannot be\n stretched to also mean that a defective quorum can hear and decide\n disputes. Learned senior counsel submits that a defect in the\n constitution would go to the root of the jurisdiction and such lack of\n jurisdiction cannot be adequately covered by attempting to invoke the\n doctrine of necessity.50. Learned senior counsel submits that petitioner is not remediless,\n in that, in case the petitioner was aggrieved by any finding of facts by\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 19 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n the CCI, a statutory appeal could have been availed of, which the\n petitioner failed to do. Learned senior counsel, though without\n admitting, stressed on the fact that the petitioner had a remedy\n available to him underSection 42Aof the Act whereby the petitioner\n could seek compensation in case of contravention of the orders of the\n CCI. Learned senior counsel submits that having not undertaken such\n alternate efficacious remedy provided by the statute, the filing of\n applications underSection 42is a gross abuse of the process of law.\n Having not availed of such remedy, the petitioner is now precluded\n from re-agitation of issues which have attained finality.51. Learned senior counsel submits that having regard to the fact\n that an alternate remedy is available, the doctrine of necessity is\n neither invocable nor applicable to the facts of the present case and\n thus, the present writ petition ought to be dismissed.ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT No.6:52. Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, learned senior counsel appears on behalf\n of respondent No.6, who was one of the informants before the CCI\n when it was proceeding to conduct inquiry undersection 19of the\n Act. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel had generally supported the\n arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner, since the petitioner as\n well as respondent No.6 were, ad idem, so far as the petition underSection 19, pending before the CCI, was concerned.Signature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 20 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:272053. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel had argued primarily on the\n following two grounds:-(a) First, that the interpretation ofSection 15of the Act, as is\n the settled law, has to be taken on the face of the\n language employed in the said section, in that, unless\n there is an ambiguity in the language employed, the\n interpretation ought to be on the basis of plain reading;(b) Second, the judgment of this Court in Cadd Systems\n (supra) holds the field so far as the interpretation ofSection 15of the Act is concerned and, therefore, there is\n no requirement for this Court to consider the ratio laid\n down by any other judgment relied upon by the other\n side.54. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel invites attention of this Court\n toSection 15of the Act to submit that the opening sentence, that is,\n "No Actor proceeding of the Commission shall be invalid merely by\n reason of...", would itself make it clear that the proceedings which\n would entail inquiry or any other proceeding, including that\n contemplated bySection 42, would not get vitiated merely because of\n lack of Composition or Quorum. In other words, learned senior\n counsel submits that since there is no bar or prohibition or even a\n mandate in the Act which specifies the minimum number of Members\n who would constitute a Bench, coupled with the plain language ofSection 15of the Act, the Bench consisting of two Members would be\n a valid Bench under the Act. Based thereon, Mr. Mehta, learned\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 21 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n senior counsel submits that the question of referring to the\n applicability of doctrine of necessity does not arise at all.55. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel then referred toArticle 227of the Constitution of India to submit that as per the provisions ofArticle 227 (2) (b), it is clear that under this provision, the overall\n superintendence and control of the subordinate courts and the\n tribunals in the Territory of Delhi are directly under this Court. In\n other words, Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel submits that this\n Court can and ought to, in the facts of the present case, direct CCI to\n take up and consider the applications underSection 42of the Act filed\n by the petitioner. He submits that the overall power of general\n superintendence cannot be circumscribed or curtailed by doctrine of\n necessity.56. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel further proceeded to\n differentiate the judgments which were relied upon by the other\n respondents to submit that, in none of those cases wasSection 15of\n the Act considered for interpretation at all. Learned Senior Counsel\n submits that it is trite that the judgment is an authority for the\n proposition that it considers, not what flows from it. Mr. Mehta, while\n refuting the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for\n respondent nos. 2 to 5, specifically points out that the same suffers\n from the sheer lack of discussion and observation on the aspect ofSection 15and its incorporation into the Act. He further submits that\n the judgments cited are based on the consideration of different laws\n applicable on entirely different contexts and thus, the same cannot be\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 22 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n taken into consideration as a precedent for this Court to consider,\n since the same actually inflict violence on the intention of the\n legislature for incorporatingSection 15into the Act. In other words,\n learned senior counsel submits that the ratio decidendi in the cases\n relied upon by the other respondents are not at all applicable to the\n facts of the present case and as such cannot be considered by this\n Court.57. By referring to the list of dates between 24.08.2022 and\n 01.09.2022, learned senior counsel submits that the UCB system was\n projected subsequent to the conclusion of the final arguments before\n the CCI. On that basis, Mr. Mehta submits that the argument of the\n other respondents that the CCI sanctified the UCB system, is without\n any merits.ARGUMENTS BY MR. N. VENKATARAMAN, LEARNED\n ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FOR CCI:-58. At the request of Mr. Venkataraman, learned ASG, the\n opportunity to argue after the conclusion of arguments of the\n petitioner as well as the other respondents, was afforded.59. Learned ASG has submitted that the CCI has no adversarial\n interest in respect of either the petitioner or the respondent and is\n merely a Regulatory and Adjudicatory Authority performing functions\n as prescribed by the Act. On that basis, learned ASG submits that the\n arguments on behalf of CCI may be taken only to further the aims and\n objects of the Act.Signature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 23 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:272060. The following are the short and concise arguments as addressed\n by the learned ASG:-(a)Section 8of the Act does not deal with the quorum and\n only constitution of CCI;(b) In so far asSection 22of the Act is concerned, the\n proviso thereto has to be read with sub-section (3) alone\n and cannot be interpreted to mean that sub-section (3) or\n for that matter, its proviso, would control all the other\n Sections of the Act;(c) In case sub-section (3) along with the proviso therein toSection 22is deemed to be a pre-condition to the\n provisions of the Act, then sub-section (2)(a) toSection 6would be impossible to comply with and would be\n rendered nugatory. It is trite that sections/provisions in an\n enactment are to be interpreted harmoniously and any\n meaning repugnant thereto ought to be repelled. This is in\n context of the timeline as prescribed in sub-section (2)(a)\n ofSection 6of the Act. The thrust being on the flexibility\n of the Commission to give effect to the provisions ofSection 6of the Act.(d) In so far as the arguments in respect ofSection 15are\n concerned, the interpretation by Mr. Sandeep Sethi,\n learned senior counsel that the word 'vacancy' used inSection 15of the Act would imply a vacancy only\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 24 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n beyond three Members cannot be read intoSection 15keeping in view the provisions ofSection 8of the Act,\n particularly, sub-section (1) toSection 8of the Act.(e) The case of Dr. Manbodh Pandey (supra) relied upon by\n the respondents is not identical and distinguishable on\n facts and thus, not applicable.(f) Learned ASG has categorically contended that the CCI is\n functional and the question of applicability of the\n doctrine of necessity to consider the applications underSection 42of the Act filed by the petitioner may not even\n arise for consideration.61. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned ASG submits\n that the above arguments have been addressed purely as a neutral\n party by the CCI, leaving for this court to render its interpretation and\n interplay of various provisions of this Act, which would be taken as a\n guiding factor by the CCI.62. On a query by this Court on the alternate relief as provided\n underSection 42Aof the Act to persons such as the petitioner and\n thereby disentitling the petitioner from pursuing his remedies underSection 42of the Act is concerned, Mr. Mehta learned senior counsel\n submits that firstly,Section 42Adoes not emasculate the right to\n specific performance and secondly, does not contemplate\n disentitlement of the petitioner or any such person to the other\n remedies available in the Act. Drawing attention to the opening words\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 25 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n ofSection 42A, Mr. Mehta submits that it is clear that the provisions\n underSection 42Aare in addition to and not in derogation of, nor\n depriving the petitioner from redressing its grievances on the basis ofSection 42of the Act.63. In rebuttal, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates\n his arguments and adopts the arguments addressed by Mr. Jayant K.\n Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.6.ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:64. This Court has heard the submissions made on behalf of the\n respective parties and considered the ratio laid down in various\n judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the\n judgments delivered by the Division Bench of this Court as well as\n other High Courts.65. On an overall appreciation of the submissions as also the\n judgment relied upon, this Court is of the opinion that what falls for\n consideration before this Court is:-(a) Whether the CCI is validly constituted presently with\n two members to continue its adjudicatory roles?(b) What is the effect ofSection 15of the Act?(c) If the aforesaid questions are answered in the\n affirmative, whether, in the present case, would there\n remain any requirement to apply the principles of\n doctrine of necessity at all?Signature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 26 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:272066. Since questions (a) and (b) framed above are interrelated, this\n Court would first deal with them.67. In order to appreciate and consider the aforesaid two questions,\n it would be apposite to extractSection 15of the Act which is as\n under:-"15. No act or proceeding of the Commission shall be\n invalid merely by reason of--(a) any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution\n of, the Commission; or(b) any defect in the appointment of a person acting\n as a Chairperson or as a Member; or(c) any irregularity in the procedure of the\n Commission not affecting the merits of the case."A plain reading of the aforesaid provision brings to fore that it\n contemplates two different functions of CCI which would be\n governed by the said Section, namely an "act" or "proceeding". It is\n manifest that the "act" contemplated, would obviously be\n distinguishable from the "proceeding", in that, a "proceeding" would\n be relatable to adjudicatory powers exercised by the CCI and anything\n other than an adjudicatory process would be covered by the word\n "act" which could mean regulatory or administrative powers of the\n CCI. Moreover, it is trite that when an enactment uses the word "or",\n it clearly indicates that the same ought to be read disjunctively,\n meaning thereby, that the saving clause ofsection 15would equally\n apply to adjudicatory/judicial powers of the CCI. So read, the\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 27 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n intention of the Legislature to ensure that the adjudicatory functions of\n the CCI does not get impeded for defect arising out of vacancy or\n constitution arising out of vacancy, becomes clear.68. Keeping the aforesaid interpretation and interplay of the\n aforesaid words, it is clear that any adjudicatory process wherein there\n is a vacancy or any defect in the constitution of the Commission\n would not invalidate the proceedings of CCI. It is trite that a statutory\n interpretation ought to be based on plain reading of the Section itself\n unless there is any ambiguity which would entail reliance upon\n extraneous materials. This Court gathers support of the aforesaid\n interpretation from the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of\n this Court in Cadd Systems (supra) whereby the provisions ofSection\n 15were called for interpretation. Learned Single Judge of this Court\n had categorically concluded, after considering the judgment of\n Mahindra and Mahindra (supra), that the provisions ofSection 15make it amply clear that no "act" or "proceedings" of the CCI would\n be invalid by reason of any vacancy or defect in the constitution.\n Learned Single Judge further observed, in the facts of that case, that\n though there was a requirement of a judicial member to be appointed\n to CCI, however, the orders passed by the CCI pending such\n appointment could not have been called into question. Learned Single\n Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in\n B.K. Srinivasan (supra) to conclude that the challenge to the defects\n of constitution of statutory bodies or defects of procedure which have\n not led to any substantial prejudice, cannot be countenanced. Learned\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 28 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n Single Judge pertinently observed that interdicting the CCI from\n passing final orders would effectively bring its functioning to a\n standstill and cannot be held to be in furtherance of the provisions of\n the Act.69. This Court is of the considered opinion that the aims and\n objects of a particular enactment ought to be interpreted in a manner\n so as to ensure that the object desired to be fulfilled by the legislature\n by such promulgation are taken to its logical conclusion. In other\n words, merely because of a defect or a vacancy in the constitution of\n the CCI, the CCI cannot be considered as a statutory authority not\n having jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints or other proceedings\n pending before it. Any interpretation, other than the aforesaid, would\n render the provisions ofSection 15otiose and which could not\n possibly be the intention of the Legislature either.70. It is also necessary to consider that the provisions ofSection 15are clearly enabling and as such ought to be given the correct impetus\n to reach a logical conclusion while interpreting the powers of CCI in\n respect of its powers of adjudication. It is trite that an enabling\n provision is engrafted by the Legislature to overcome any inability\n which may accrue to statutory authorities like the CCI, while acting in\n furtherance of the aims and objects of the Act. In other words, it is to\n obviate the difficulties which may arise accruing on account of\n vacancy or defect in the constitution of the CCI, that such enabling\n sections are engrafted.Signature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 29 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:272071. It would also be apposite to extract the provisions ofSection 8which are as under:-"8. Composition of Commission\n (1) The Commission shall consist of a Chairperson\n and not less than two and not more than six other\n Members to be appointed by the Central Government.\n (2) The Chairperson and every other Member shall\n be a person of ability, integrity and standing and who\n has special knowledge of, and such professional\n experience of not less than fifteen years in, international\n trade, economics, business, commerce, law, finance,\n accountancy, management, industry, public affairs or\n competition matters, including competition law and\n policy, which in the opinion of the Central Government,\n may be useful to the Commission.(3) The Chairperson and other Members shall be\n whole-time Members."From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that\n there is no prescription as to what would be the minimum number of\n members who would constitute a valid quorum. As such, the argument\n that the Act prescribes a minimum number of members who would\n validly constitute the quorum, so far as the adjudicatory role of the\n CCI is concerned, is without any legs to stand.72. Further to the aforesaid, this Court has generally considered\n various provisions of the Act in general and has observed that there is\n no provision which prescribes minimum number of members who\n would validly constitute a quorum of CCI in its adjudicatory\n proceedings. It is trite that Courts cannot read into an enactment,\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 30 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n something which is conspicuous by its absence. Moreover, the Court\n has to assume that if there is any absence of a provision, the\n legislature in its wisdom thought it appropriate not to engraft the\n same. In that, the preamble of the Act provides the foundation for\n engrafting and promulgation of such provisions for the Act. The same\n is reproduced herein:-"An Actto provide, keeping in view of the\n economic development of the country, for the\n establishment of a Commission to prevent\n practices having adverse effect on competition, to\n promote and sustain competition in markets, to\n protect the interests of consumers and to ensure\n freedom of trade carried on by other participants\n in markets, in India, and for matters connected\n therewith or incidental thereto."The reason is not far to see, in that, it is presumed that the\n Legislature, while promulgating an enactment, takes into\n consideration not only any other Act, but is also presumed to be aware\n of the rationale behind and objects sought to be achieved by the\n enactment, and it is only thereafter that the legislature promulgates\n any enactment. It is well settled that the Doctrine of Cassus Omissus\n cannot be applied to fill any apprehended lacuna in an enactment.73. It is also clear from the plain reading ofSection 8that what is\n contemplated is the composition of the commission and not quorum,\n meaning thereby the composition of the commission would consist of\n the Chairperson and not less than two and not more than six other\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 31 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n members who are to be appointed by the Central Government. It\n would be apposite to extractSection 22of the Act, which is as under:-"22. Meetings of Commission\n (1) The Commission shall meet at such times and\n places, and shall observe such rules and procedure in\n regard to the transaction of business at its meetings as\n may be provided by regulations.(2) The Chairperson, if for any reason, is unable to\n attend a meeting of the Commission, the senior-most\n Member present at the meeting, shall preside at the\n meeting.(3) All questions which come up before any meeting\n of the Commission shall be decided by a majority of the\n Members present and voting, and in the event of an\n equality of votes, the Chairperson or in his absence, the\n Member presiding, shall have a second or/casting vote:Provided that the quorum for such meeting shall\n be three Members."It is clear from the above that the composition of the CCI itself\n has no nexus with the word "quorum" as employed in the proviso to\n sub-section 3toSection 22of the Act. Moreover, the word "quorum"\n as used in proviso to sub-section 3is in respect of meetings of the\n commission, which are not relatable to the adjudicatory proceedings\n of the CCI. It is for that reason that the proviso prescribes a "quorum"\n for any meeting to be consisting of three members mandatorily. The\n provisions ofSection 22appear to be purely in respect of\n administrative action to be undertaken by the commission and have no\n nexus with the adjudicatory process, inasmuch as, no adjudicatory\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 32 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n process can be rendered by a decision of majority of the members\n present and voting, which could be comprehensible only in context of\n a meeting, which does not have entrapment of an adjudicatory\n process. Clearly an adjudicatory process would involve an application\n of mind and determination of issues in the judicial sense.74. In view of the aforesaid observation, the arguments of Mr.\n Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel in respect of quorum being\n complete only if three members of the CCI, including the\n Chairperson, constitute the same, is untenable. For the same reason,\n the argument of Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel that the word\n "vacancy" used inSection 15read with sub-section 3 of Section 22 of\n the Act mean that the word "vacancy" would be applicable only and\n only if the vacancy is in respect of members more than three and less\n than seven, would also be untenable, considering the plain language of\n both the Sections. Though the argument, at the first blush, appears to\n be logical, however, in view of the fact that the provisions ofSection\n 22are not relatable to the adjudicatory process at all, the interpretation\n sought to be given to the word "vacancy" inSection 15, by reading\n the proviso to sub-section (3) toSection 22of the Act into it, would\n also stand rejected.75. The other argument of Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel was\n that if there is a lack of quorum, it would entail, firstly, loss of\n rationale which is inherent in a decision and secondly, lack of quorum\n would constitute lack of jurisdiction. On that basis, learned senior\n counsel submitted that an improperly constituted CCI would have no\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 33 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n jurisdiction to decide any issue. The said submission, ostensibly, was\n predicated on the fact that the minimum quorum of CCI is three\n members relying upon the proviso to sub-section 3toSection 22of\n the Act. The aforesaid argument in the opinion of this Court would be\n untenable for the reason that this Court has already concluded that the\n word "quorum" employed in proviso to sub-section 3toSection 22has no nexus with the adjudicatory process of the CCI and is limited\n only to its administrative acts. Considering the aforesaid, the\n submission that the constitution of CCI less than three members\n would create lack of jurisdiction of CCI as an adjudicatory authority,\n would fail.76. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered\n opinion that the provisions ofSection 15act as a saving clause in\n regard to a situation where a vacancy or a defect in constitution of the\n CCI would arise and any such vacancy or defect in the constitution\n would not invalidate any proceedings so far as the adjudicatory\n powers of the CCI is concerned. Accordingly, the aforesaid two\n questions (a) and (b) as framed by this Court, are answered in the\n affirmative.77. Now to deal with question (c) as framed by this Court.78. So far as the issue regarding doctrine of necessity is concerned,\n learned counsel for all the parties have vehemently addressed\n arguments in support of their contentions. The said submissions were\n also buttressed by a number of judgments on what constitutes doctrine\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 34 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n of necessity, its applicability and as to whether in the facts of the\n present case it was applicable.79. Having regard to the definition of what constitutes doctrine of\n necessity as rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.\n Mohapatra's (supra), it is clear that it is only when an adjudicator\n who is subject to disqualification on the ground of bias or interest in\n the matter which he has to decide, may be required to adjudicate if\n there is no other person who is competent or authorized to adjudicate\n or if a quorum cannot be formed without him or if no other competent\n Tribunal can be constituted, that the doctrine of necessity may become\n applicable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that in such\n cases, the principles of natural justice would have to give way to the\n necessity, for otherwise there would be no means of deciding the\n matter and the machinery of justice or administration would break\n down.80. Having regard to the aforesaid position of law, clarified by\n various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the doctrine of\n necessity, this Court has to now consider whether the same would be\n applicable at all.81. The arguments rendered by learned senior counsel for the\n respondent nos. 2 to 5 would make an attempt to bring the issues\n raised by the petitioner in his application underSection 42of the Act\n and the proceedings sought to initiate thereon, within the bar of\n doctrine of necessity. According to the learned senior counsel for the\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 35 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n respondents, predicated on the basis that there is a lack of quorum due\n to vacancy of a member constituting the quorum (minimum being 3\n including the Chairperson), the deficiency would be considered as\n lack of jurisdiction and as such the doctrine of necessity cannot be\n applied in the facts of the present case. It was also urged that the\n present quorum of two members, therefore, does not constitute a\n legally valid constitution of CCI at all. In other words, it was only if\n the quorum or constitution comprising of three members was holding\n proceedings at present, with any of such members earning\n disqualification in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble\n Supreme Court, that the doctrine of necessity could be invoked. The\n upshot being that the doctrine of necessity would clearly not be\n invocable in a case where the CCI comprises of members less than\n three.82. So far as the submissions of Mr. Sajan Poovayya, learned\n senior counsel in regard to touching upon the merit and findings of the\n CCI in respect of monetization model of respondent nos. 2 to 5 in\n context of maintainability of applications underSection 42is\n concerned, the same are left for consideration of the CCI leaving the\n rights of the parties reserved.83. This Court is in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Sajan\n Poovayya, learned senior counsel that the doctrine of necessity is in\n respect of an institution and not a particular case. However, since this\n Court has answered questions (a) and (b) in the affirmative, no useful\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 36 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n purpose would be served in addressing the arguments urged on behalf\n of respondent nos. 2 and 3.84. The reliance of Mr. Poovayya, learned senior counsel on the\n judgments of The Punjab University (supra) and J. Mohapatra\n (supra) have already been considered above.85. The next submission of Mr. Poovayya, learned senior counsel\n on the aspect of the petitioner having an alternative efficacious\n remedy in terms of provisions ofSection 42Aof the Act are\n concerned,Section 42Aopens with the words, "Without prejudice to\n the provisions of this Act.....", which would clearly indicate that the\n mechanism for compensation etc. as stipulated underSection 42Ais\n clearly in addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of\n the Act.Section 42Aclearly does not commence with a non obstante\n clause and therefore would not override the other provisions of the\n Act. Thus, the said contention is rejected for the aforesaid reasons.86. Learned senior counsel had also submitted that the petitioner\n was already aware of the UCB Pilot system even prior to the filing of\n the applications underSection 42of the Act and therefore the urgency\n as alleged by the petitioner in respect of the intended launch of the\n UCB Pilot system on 26.04.2023, would not entitle the petitioner from\n invoking the doctrine of necessity. Keeping in view of the conclusions\n already drawn by this Court in respect of invoking of doctrine of\n necessity, the requirement to consider disputed factual aspects is not\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 37 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43\n Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2720\n\n necessary in the present proceedings underArticle 226of the\n Constitution of India.87. In the present case, none of the learned senior counsel\n appearing on behalf of the respondents, at all submitted that the\n members who presently comprise the CCI are disqualified for any\n reason. Having regard thereto, the question of examining whether the\n doctrine of necessity is or is not applicable to the present case does\n not arise at all.88. Moreover, according to Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned ASG,\n the CCI is constituted in accordance with the provisions of theCompetition Act, 2002 and is very much functional and also\n simultaneously carrying out adjudicatory functions.89. In view of the above, there is no impediment, legal or\n otherwise, in directing the CCI to take up the applications underSection 42of the Act, as filed by the petitioner, for hearing and\n considering the same in accordance with law on or before 26.04.2023.\n Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in above terms.90. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only to\n the extent of deciding the present lis before this Court and shall not\n tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case and the same is\n therefore, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the\n parties, to be taken at an appropriate proceeding.TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.APRIL 24, 2023/Aj\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nBy:VINOD KUMARW.P.(C) 4599/2023 Page 38 of 38Signing Date:24.04.2023\n15:07:43 |
cd8aee4e-f9eb-55a9-af37-3a4bb815bfc9 | court_cases | Bombay High CourtThe State Of Maharashtra vs Baban Gangaram Chirate & Ors on 30 April, 2020Bench: S.S. Shinde, Nitin B. SuryawanshiJudgment 1 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 402 OF 1997\n\n\n The State of Maharashtra.\n .... APPELLANT.\n // VERSUS //\n\n 1. Baban Gangaram Chirate,\n Age 50 yrs.,\n\n 2. Ramchandra @ Shriram Baban\n Chirate, Age 24 yrs.,\n\n 3. Harishchandra Baban Chirate,\n Age 21 yrs.,\n\n 4. Sukrya @ Sukhdev Baban\n Chirate, Age 30 yrs.,\n\n 5. Pandurang Devu Bhagat, }\n }\n 6. Bachhu Govind Chirate, } Appeal dismissed as per\n } Order dated 08.06.1998.\n 7. Jairam Yeshwant Chirate. }\n\n All R/at Village Talekhal,\n Tah. Murbad, Dist. Thane.\n\n\n .... RESPONDENTS.\n ___________________________________________________________________\n Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh, A. P. P. for Appellant/State.\n Shri Shantanu Phanse, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.\n ___________________________________________________________________\n\n\n CORAM : S.S.SHINDE AND N.B.SURYAWANSHI, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 24/01/2020.DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 30/04/2020.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 2 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n JUDGMENT : (Per : N.B.Suryawanshi, J.)\n\n\n 1. Heard.2. Acquittal of the respondent-accused recorded by the learned\n\n Sessions Judge, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,\n\n 149, 302, 307 and 302 read withSection 34of the Indian Penal Code and\n\n underSection 27(3)of the Arms Act is questioned by the State in the present\n\n appeal.The prosecution case, in short, is that:3. On 03/09/1992 at 7.30 a.m. complainant Yeshwant Nanu Chirate,\n\n who is injured witness and son of deceased Nanu @ Nenu Ganpat Chirate,\n\n lodged complaint with Police Station, Murbad vide CR. No.I/178/92 alleging\n\n that accused Nos.1 to 7 were members of unlawful assembly and in\n\n prosecution of the common object of that assembly committed riot and\n\n thereafter committed murder of his father Nanu by sword. In furtherance of\n\n the same transaction, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 went to the field of the\n\n complainant and assaulted him with swords, due to which he sustained\n\n injuries on vital parts. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet came\n\n to be filed and case was committed to the Sessions Court. All the seven\n\n accused were charged for commission of the offences punishable underSections 147,148,149,302,307and302read withSection 34of the Indian\n\n Penal Code and underSection 27(3)of the Arms Act.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 3 apeal402.97.odt4. The prosecution in support of its case examined in all 11\n\n witnesses. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence of the\n\n prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove\n\n guilt of the accused persons and hence, acquitted all the accused. The said\n\n acquittal is impugned by the State in this appeal.5. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned Advocate\n\n appointed to represent the respondents/ accused. With their able assistance\n\n we have gone through the grounds raised in the appeal memo, notes of\n\n evidence and the record.6. The learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that though there is\n\n reliable and cogent evidence of eyewitness P.W. No.2, P.W. No.3 and P.W. No.6\n\n available on record, so also of injured witness P.W. No.1/complainant, the\n\n learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the proper\n\n perspective and erroneously acquitted the accused persons. After taking us\n\n through the evidence of eyewitnesses including the injured witness, the\n\n learned A.P.P. submits that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable\n\n doubt. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and the\n\n reasoning adopted while acquitting the accused is faulty, hence, she prayed\n\n that the appeal may be allowed and the accused be convicted. She placed\n\n reliance on following judgments :::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 4 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n i)Appabhai and another.vs.State of Gujarat,\n reported in AIR 1988 SC 696,\n\n ii)State of Gujarat vs. Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai,\n reported in 1990 CRI.L.J. 2531,\n\n iii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal AppealNo.562 of 2007 inBhajan Singh @ Harbhanjan Singh vs.\n State of Haryana,7. Per contra, the learned Advocate representing the accused\n\n would urge that the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused\n\n by giving proper reasonings. The evidence of the accused has full of\n\n omissions and contradictions and it does not inspire confidence. He,\n\n therefore, states that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State and the\n\n same deserves to be dismissed. In support of his arguments, he relied upon\n\n the ratio laid down in the following judgments:i)Kashinath B. Palkar vs. The State of Maharashtra,\n reported in 1995(1) ALL MR 412,ii)Murlidhar @ Gidda and Anr.vs. State of Karnataka,\n reported in AIR 2014 SC 2200,iii)Tota Singh and others vs. State of Punjab,\n reported in AIR 1987 SC 1083.8. P.W. 1-Yeshwant (complainant) is not eyewitness to the incident\n\n of assault on deceased Nanu, but is injured in the second incident wherein\n\n four accused have assaulted him. In his deposition, he has stated that P.W. 2\n\n and P.W. 3 came and told him that his father is not alive. He states that his::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 5 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n statement was recorded by the police in the hospital and in the second\n\n breath he states that his statement was recorded after he reached Murbad\n\n Police Station. The incident of his assault has occurred at 07.45 a.m. and he\n\n became unconscious. He regained consciousness after two hours, however,\n\n though he was acquainted with the assailants, he failed to disclose their\n\n names to his family members as well as large number of people gathered\n\n near his house. The fact that he failed unconscious after the assault is proved\n\n to be an omission. P.W. 1 states that he had been to the Police Station along\n\n with P.W. 4 at 11.00 a.m. However, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) states\n\n that P.W. 1 had gone to the Police Station in injured condition, but it is not\n\n mentioned in the Station Diary, as to who caused injuries to the P.W. 1 and\n\n with what weapon. It is, therefore, clear that P.W. 1 failed to disclose the\n\n names of his assailants and the assailants of his father at the first opportunity,\n\n at his own house and also at the second opportunity at the Police Station at\n\n 11.00 a.m.9. In the evidence of P.W. No.10 Dr. Rajendra Rathod it has come\n\n on record that for the fist time he came across P.W. 1 at 3.00 p.m. and prior\n\n to that he did not see P.W. 1. If this statement is considered along with the\n\n statement of P.W. 1 that his F.I.R. was recorded at Hospital the F.I.R. must\n\n have been recorded either at 3.00 p.m. or after 3.00 p.m. However, as per\n\n the evidence of Investigating Officer P.W. 11 the F.I.R. was registered at 13.45\n\n hrs. P.W. 1 in his evidence states that all the 4 accused inflicted one blow::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 6 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n each on him with sword. However, he has given history to P.W. No.10\n\n Dr.Rathod that he was assaulted with a knife. M.L.C. Certificate of P.W. 1\n\n shows that he has given history of assault with knife at 7.30 a.m. No names\n\n of assailants are mentioned in the M.L.C. Register. All these aspects cast\n\n serious doubt on the veracity of these witnesses.10. P.W. 2-Dashrath is an eyewitness to the incident of killing Nanu.\n\n He claims to have informed P.W. 1 that assailants have murdered his father.\n\n He states that Nanu was alive till he was brought at home and he disclosed\n\n names of his assailants to his brother and thereafter he became unconscious\n\n and succumbed to the injuries. If this witness has told P.W. 1 that his father\n\n was killed there was no occasion of Nanu being alive and disclosing names of\n\n his assailants to his brother. This witness has not stated to the police that he\n\n had gone to the house of Nanu so also he has not stated that he was waiting\n\n for Nanu in the field of Jairam Chitare on the day of the incident. The\n\n presence of this witness on the spot is doubtful.11. According to P.W. 2 at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning the\n\n assailants committed murder of deceased Nanu and thereafter they came\n\n running to the spot, where P.W. 1 Yeshwant was assaulted. The distance\n\n between the two spots is 3-4 kms. The assailants were armed with swords,\n\n but no-one in the village have seen the assailants, though it was day of Gauri\n\n festival. Material omissions are brought on record in the evidence of this::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 7 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n witness. His statement that "he heard the talk of assailants where they\n\n disclosed intention to kill P.W. 1". "Since he heard this conversation he\n\n reached to the spot where P.W. 1 was assaulted and accordingly he became\n\n eyewitness to the second incident of assault on P.W. 1" are proved in the form\n\n of omission. Thus, his presence on both the spots is highly doubtful.This witness P.W. 2 has shown spot of incident to the police.\n\n The spot panchnama Exh.10 does not show that any incriminating articles\n\n were found on the said spot. The Investigating Officer, who conducted spot\n\n panchnama has not attached soil or mud containing blood stains, further\n\n raises doubt about the spot of incident where Nanu was assaulted. P.W. 2\n\n though says that Tukaram (P.W. 6) was present on the spot of incident, this is\n\n also proved to be an omission. The material omissions in the evidence of the\n\n witnesses are brought on record by the defence casts serious doubt on the\n\n veracity of the witnesses.12. P.W. 3 Balu is also an eyewitness to the incident. This witness\n\n also does not disclose presence of eyewitness P.W. 6-Tukaram. This witness\n\n knew the assailants/accused, however, he failed to disclose the names of the\n\n assailants to the police. P.W. 3 was not sure whether Nanu was alive or dead\n\n after he became unconscious, after the assault. He has stated that he was\n\n knowing names of the assailants before Nanu disclosed names to his brother\n\n and statement of this witness was recorded by the police in the evening.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 8 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n Thus, it is clear that this witness failed to disclose names of the assailants to\n\n the brother of the deceased and to the police officers at the first opportunity,\n\n which renders the evidence of this witness unreliable. Even the evidence of\n\n this witness is full of material omissions and it is unsafe to rely upon the\n\n testimony of this witness.13. P.W. 4-Shantaram is brother of the deceased. He carried Nanu\n\n from the spot of incident to his house on his shoulders. His clothes were\n\n stained with blood but they were not seized by the police. After bringing\n\n Nanu to his house, Nanu regained consciousness and he disclosed names of\n\n all the 7 assailants. Thereafter he proceeded to bring Yeshwant and he found\n\n Yeshwant in unconscious condition. He further states that statement / F.I.R.\n\n of Yeshwant was not recorded in the police station when he accompanied\n\n Yeshwant to Murbad Police Station at about 10.45 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.\n\n Material omissions are brought on record by the defence in the evidence of\n\n this witness. Theory of oral dying declaration of this witness is unacceptable\n\n in view of the evidence of P.W. 1-complainant Yeshwant that P.Ws. 2 and 3\n\n came running to him and disclosed that his father was killed by the accused\n\n persons.14. P..W. 6-Tukaram claims to be the eyewitness to the assault on\n\n complainant Yeshwant (P.W.1). Presence of this witness is not given by P.W.\n\n Nos. 2 and 3 and they have first time stated about his presence before the::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 9 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n Court. This witness has also not spoken about the presence of P.W. Nos. 2\n\n and 3 at the time of assault on P.W. 1. P.W. 6 does not state in his evidence\n\n that he saw P.W. 2 and 3 running towards the spot of incident and they\n\n shouted and warned P.W. 1 Yeshwant that he would be assaulted by the\n\n accused charging towards the said spot with swords. This creates doubt\n\n about presence of P.W. Nos.2 and 3 on the spot. In cross-examination, P.W. 6\n\n has stated that at about 9.00 to 9.30 a.m. police had arrived in village and he\n\n informed the incident witnessed by him to the police. But this version is not\n\n corroborated by any Police Officer examined by the prosecution.15. P.W. 11 Investigating Officer has stated that he personally\n\n secured Injury Certificate of P.W. 1 Yeshwant. However, no Injury Certificate\n\n of P.W. 1 was brought on record by the prosecution except MLC Register. This\n\n witness further states that there is entry in the Station Diary about Yeshwant\n\n having brought to the Police Station in injured condition by his relatives.\n\n This witness admitted in his evidence that in the said entry there is no\n\n mention as to who caused injuries to Yeshwant and with what weapon. He,\n\n further admitted that there is no mention in the Station Diary as to who\n\n killed father of Yeshwant i.e. Nanu and with what weapon. From the F.I.R.\n\n he has confirmed that crime is registered at 13.45 hrs. and prior to 3 and 3½\n\n hrs. of registration of the crime, Yeshwant had been to the Police Station. The\n\n said time gap was mentioned in his police diary. He states that no articles\n\n were attached from the spot during spot panchnama. So also soil/ mud::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 10 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n mixed with blood was not attached from the spot. He further admits that the\n\n family members of the deceased have not produced any clothes worn by the\n\n deceased at the time of the incident. Though he recorded statements of\n\n witness who lifted the deceased, clothes of those witnesses have not been\n\n seized. No map of scene of the offence has been drawn by the Investigating\n\n Officer. No blood samples of P.W. 1 and accused persons were collected to\n\n ascertain the blood group. Even the clothes of P.W. 1 Yeshwant were not\n\n attached during investigation.16. Considering the evidence brought on record by the prosecution,\n\n it is clear that the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 does\n\n not inspire confidence. P.W. 2 and P.W.3 do not speak about presence of P.W.\n\n 6 so also P.W. 6 does not speak about presence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. In the\n\n evidence of these witnesses material omissions and contradictions are proved\n\n on record. The evidence of P.W. 1 also is not reliable as he has failed to\n\n disclose names of the assailants at the first opportunity to the relatives and\n\n other villagers, even in the hospital he has failed to disclose the names of the\n\n assailants and at the second opportunity in the Police Station, which fact is\n\n admitted by the Investigating Officer that P.W. 1 did not disclose names of his\n\n assailants, so also all the assailants of deceased Nanu. Disclosure of P.W. 1 in\n\n the hospital which is recorded in the form of history, is history of the assault\n\n with knife, which goes contrary to the version of the P.W. 1 that he was\n\n assailed with swords by 4 accused persons and each one gave one blow. The::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 11 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n Injury Certificate of P.W. 1 is not brought on record by the prosecution. So\n\n also the clothes worn by him at the time of assault are not attached during\n\n investigation. Similarly, the clothes of P.W. 4 who allegedly carried deceased\n\n Nanu on his shoulders to his house are not attached. All these aspects\n\n render the prosecution case doubtful.17 The spot of incident where Nanu was assaulted and thrown is\n\n also doubtful and the same is not proved by the prosecution. Absence of\n\n blood mixed soil/ mud from the spot of incident, non-drawing of the map of\n\n the scene of the offence during the investigation renders the spot of incident\n\n doubtful. From the fact that prior to 3-3½ hours of registration of the crime,\n\n P.W. 1 Yeshwant had been to the Police Station and even at that time there\n\n was no disclosure by P.W. 1 Yeshwant to the Investigating Officer about the\n\n incidence and the names of the assailants casts serious doubt on the\n\n prosecution case.18. Theory of oral dying declaration of deceased Nanu made to P.W.\n\n No.4 is unsustainable, particularly in view of the medical evidence on record.\n\n The Medical Officer has admitted that considering the injuries suffered by\n\n Nanu loss of consciousness was possible. By referring to author P.D. Contor's\n\n Traumatic Medicines and Surgery for the Attorney he admitted the\n\n proposition that 'the energy of blow to the head is transmitted to the brain in\n\n the form of shock waive which, if severe enough, can cause damage to any::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 12 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n region of the brain'. He further admitted the proposition from the said book\n\n that 'with an injury to the frontal or parital area of skull, the shock waive\n\n may carry through the brain directly down to the brain stem and medulla\n\n oblowangata. The full force of shock waive of this nature can cause contusion\n\n and vascular damage so that sudden death can result from disfunction of\n\n these vital brain centers.' He also admitted that since the brain was found\n\n congested during post mortem, it is suggestive that the victim would lose\n\n consciousness. Considering these admissions it is difficult to believe that\n\n Nanu was in position to make dying declaration. The dying declaration is\n\n also not believable because the P.W. No.1 and P.W. No.3, the alleged\n\n eyewitnesses informed P.W. No.1 that his father was killed by the accused\n\n persons. Thus, Nanu was not alive when the said information was given to\n\n P.W. No.1. We are unable to accept the oral dying declaration theory claimed\n\n by the P.W. No.4.19. It is pertinent to note here that as per the evidence on record\n\n adjoining to village Alekhal, where the incident has taken place, there is\n\n village namely Dehri. Simply a stream is flowing in between the two villages.\n\n There is only a Police Out-Post and one Police Head Constable and Police\n\n Constable are stationed there. The incident has taken place during Ganpati\n\n Festival when both the police personnel were working there. Noting in the\n\n Station Diary Exh.86 shows that Jamadar Pardhi and two other constables\n\n were on duty at that point of time. On close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 13 apeal402.97.odt\n\n\n\n\n 1-complainant and P.W.2 Dashrath, after Yeshwant was brought in the house,\n\n within 30 minutes Police Constable came there. According to P.W. 3, Police\n\n came there within 50 minutes after Nanu was brought to the house. The\n\n police visited the house immediately after the incident, before Yeshwant was\n\n taken to the hospital. P.W. 1 has stated that police inquired with him in his\n\n village itself and he gave details. Same is the version given by P.W. 3 Balu. It\n\n is therefore, clear that before P.W. 1 reached Police Station the police were\n\n already intimated about the incident. However, there is no occurrence report\n\n prepared by the police. P.W. 1 is giving inconsistent statements. At one place\n\n he claims that as soon as he approached the Police Station his statement was\n\n recorded and in the next breath he states that his statement was recorded in\n\n the hospital. P.W. 4-Shantaram, who accompanied P.W. 1-Yeshwant, states\n\n that he gave details and names of the assailants to the police when he arrived\n\n in the Police Station with Yeshwant. However, entry in the Police Station\n\n diary taken at 13.00 hrs. does not speak about the name of any assailant. It\n\n only mentions that Nanu was dead and lying on the spot. All these aspects\n\n create a serious doubt about the prosecution case.20. As per the medical evidence, death of Nanu occurred at about\n\n 1.00 a.m. whereas the witnesses have witnessed the assault on Nanu at\n\n about 7.30 a.m. which further clears doubt about the prosecution version.\n\n Though swords were allegedly recovered from the accused persons there\n\n were no blood stains on the sword and therefore, the said recovery cannot be\n\n of any help to the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 :::Judgment 14 apeal402.97.odt21. Taking into consideration all these aspects the prosecution has\n\n failed to prove the offence against the accused persons beyond reasonable\n\n doubt. The learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused persons\n\n by giving cogent reasons and no fault can be found with the view taken by\n\n the learned trial Court regarding acquittal. There is no merit in the appeal\n\n filed by the State against acquittal. Hence, the following order:i) Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 1997 is dismissed.\n\n\n ii) Bail bonds of the accused persons, if any, stand cancelled.\n\n\n iii) Muddemal property be dealt with according to law.\n\n\n iv) We appreciate the assistance rendered by the learnedAdvocate Mr. Shantanu Phanse appointed to represent the\n case of 1st to 4th respondents. We quantify his fees at Rupees\n Ten Thousand (plus) actual expenses, if any incurred by him,\n which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services\n Committee, Mumbai to him within a period of four weeks\n from the date of this order.(N.B.SURYAWANSHI, J) (S.S.SHINDE, J)\n\n\n\n\n RRaut..::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 03:29:32 ::: |
a2c37e89-2b2e-5f58-bde9-ccfedb61cae1 | court_cases | Delhi District CourtRoc vs . Surender Modi on 28 November, 2020DLCT020092692016\n\n\n\n\n Ct. Cases/536235/2016\n\n ROC VS. SURENDER MODI\n\n JUDGMENT(a) Sr. No. of the Case 536235/16\n(b) Complainant Registrar of Companies through\n Rajneesh Kumar Singh, the then Asstt.\n Registrar of Companies.\n\n(c) Surender Modi R/o. 22 Sirifort Road,\n Name, parentage and\n New Delhi.\n residence/address of\n accused.\n(d) Offence complained In contravention of Section 165 (3)\n of which is punishable underSection 165\n (6)of Companies Act.\n(e) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty\n(f) Final Order Convicted\n(f) Date of Institution 26.05.2016\n(h) Date of reserving 28.11.2020\n judgment\n(i) Date of judgment 28.11.2020\n\n Brief facts and reasons for the decision:\n\n\nFACTUAL MATRIX1. The present complaint is filedu/s 200Cr.P.C read withSection 165\n (3) (6)of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Registrar of Companies of\nCIS No. 536235/16 ROC VS. SURENDER MODI PAGE NO. 1 of 5\n NCT of Delhi and Haryana through Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Singh\n Deputy Registrar of Companies. It is alleged in the complaint that\n accused Surender Modi is registered vide Director's identification no.\n XXXXX038. It is stated that as persection 165of the Companies Act,\n 2013 no person after the commencement of act shall hold the office\n of Director including any alternate directorship in more than 20\n companies at the same time. It is alleged that accused Sh.Surender\n Modi despite lapse of one year from the date on which the companies\n Act 2013 came into force as he was found violatingsection 165of the\n Companies Act, 2013 as he was holding directorship in more than 20\n companies.COURT PROCEEDINGS2. Accused was summoned by my Ld. Predecessor to face trial for the\n offencesu/s 165 (6)Companies Act, 2013. Thereafter, noticeu/s 251Cr.P.C was framed for prima facie violation ofsection 165 (3)and165(6)of the Companies Act, 2013 vide order dated 26.04.2017. On\n 15.03.2019, the statement of the accusedu/s 313read withSection\n 281Cr.P.C was recorded.COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE3. Complainant examined CW1 Ms. Shefali Gupta, Assistant Registrar\n of Companies. She proved the complaint Ex. CW1/5. She also\n proved on record the DIN application number Ex. CW1/1, list of\n directorship obtained from MCA Portal Ex. CW1/2, showcause notice\n sent through email Ex. CW1/3 and certificate u/s 65B of the Indian\n\n CIS No. 536235/16 ROC VS. SURENDER MODI PAGE NO. 2 of 5Evidence ActEx. CW1/4. On the other hand accused examined Sh.\n Raj Kumar as DW1 in defence evidence.DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED/FINAL ARGUMENTS.4. Arguments heard. Record perused. The Ex. CW1/1 is the DIN\n application details of the accused vide DIN No. XXXX038. Ex. CW1/2\n shows the details of the directorship of the accused in various\n companies from time to time. The said documents is dated\n 16.05.2016 which shows that the accused was continuing director in\n 21 companies on 16.05.2016. Both the said documents are admissible\n in evidence in view ofSection 397of the Companies Act, 2013\n without any further proof or production of originals as evidence. The\n status of directorship in aforesaid 21 companies is also not disputed\n by the accused in the cross examination of CW1. It is argued by Ld.\n Defence Counsel that the show cause noticeu/s 165 (6)Companies\n Act, 2013 was served by the ROC office on email I.D[email protected]and[email protected]. It is\n submitted that as per the DIN application details Ex. CW1/1, the\n email I.D as furnished in the director identification form is\n compliance.services @ymail.com. It is stated that the form GNL1 Ex.\n CW1/D1 is also placed on record which shows that the email I.D as[email protected]. It is argued that the show cause notice is\n admittedly not issued by the department at the emails I.Ds which are\n mentioned in the DIN form Ex. CW1/1 and GNL1 form. It is also\n argued that CW1 in her cross examination has admitted the\n aforesaid position and also stated that she cannot say as to whether\n the show cause notice was sent at the email I.D i.e\n\n CIS No. 536235/16 ROC VS. SURENDER MODI PAGE NO. 3 of 5\n compliance.services @ymail.com.5. DW1 who is chartered account of accused, in his testimony has also\n stated that email I.D[email protected]and[email protected]does not belong to him. It is submitted that\n as the show cause notice was not served on the accused, therefore the\n prosecution is not maintainable. It is also stated that after the\n institution of the case the accused has reduced his directorship within\n the ceiling limit of 20 directors and there was no malafide intention\n to violate the law.6. So far as the question of service of notice Ex. CW1/3 is concerned,\n firstly, there is no statutory requirementu/s 165of the Companies\n Act, 2013 to serve any showcause notice. Apart from that the\n accused nowhere has disputed that the email I.D[email protected]and[email protected]do not\n belong to him. No suggestion disowning the said email IDs was given\n in cross examination of complainant's witnesses. DW1 Mr. Raj\n Kumar who is the chartered accountant only stated that the aforesaid\n email I.Ds do not belongs to him. Nowhere in his testimony DW1\n stated that the aforesaid email I.Ds does not belong to accused. Apart\n from that the said email I.Ds were available in the ROC record and\n the admissibility of the electronic record is supported bysection 397of the Companies Act, 2013. Accordingly, the arguments regarding\n the nonservice of the showcause notice does not go to the root of\n the matter as there is no statutory requirement and even otherwise as\n per the evidence the contentions are not proved.CIS No. 536235/16 ROC VS. SURENDER MODI PAGE NO. 4 of 57. It is settled principal of law that ignorance of the law is not an\n excuse.The Companies Act, 2013came into force on 12.09.2013 and\n the provisions ofSection 165Came in operation w.e.f. 01.04.2014.Section 165(3)of Companies Act, 2013 gave a compliance period of\n one year to the Directors to choose not more than the specified limit\n of companies where they want to continue to hold their office and\n want to resign from the companies and also to intimate the choice to\n concerned registrar having jurisdiction.Section 165(4)of Companies\n Act further mandated that the said resignation shall become\n immediately effective on dispatch thereof to the companies\n concerned. The said legislative mandate was writ large and was\n supposed to be complied by all the directors of the companies\n without any necessity showcause notice from the ROC office. But\n unfortunately, the accused ignored the legislative mandate and\n continued to be director in more than 20 companies even on\n 16.05.2016 and after the filing of this complaint on 26.05.2016 in\n violation of the law. Accordingly, from the material on record, it is\n clear that the accused has acted in contravention of provision ofsection 165of the Companies Act and violated the same and\n accordingly, accused Surender Modi stands convicted undersection\n 165(6)of the Companies Act, 2013.Digitally signedby ABHILASHABHILASH MALHOTRA\nAnnounced in open\n MALHOTRA Date:2020.12.02\nCourt on 28.11.2020 (ABHILASH MALHOTRA) 11:35:15 +0530\n ACMM (Spl. Acts):Central District:Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi\n\n\n\n\nCIS No. 536235/16 ROC VS. SURENDER MODI PAGE NO. 5 of 5 |
2dc9cc4f-abf5-5703-93bf-35fc37dd9e2f | court_cases | Securities Appellate TribunalSurabhi Mittal vs Sebi on 9 February, 2022Author:Tarun AgarwalaBench:Tarun AgarwalaBEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n MUMBAI\n Date of Decision : 09.02.2022\n\n Misc. Application No. 79 of 2022\n And\n Appeal No. 26 of 2022\n\n\nSurabhi Mittal\n67/96 Daulat Ganj, Kanpur,\nUtter Pradesh- 208 001 ...Appellant\n\nVersus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India,\nSEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,\nBandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),\nMumbai- 400 051 ...Respondent\n\n\nMr. Pradeep Tulsian, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.\n\nMr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Karthik Narayan,\nMr. Harshvardhan Nankani, Mr. Shourya Tanay and Mr. Anshu\nMehta, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent (SEBI).\n\n\nCORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer\n Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member\n\n\nPer: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)\n\n\n\n1.Having heard the authorised representative of the\n\nappellant, we find that the controversy involved in the present\n\nappeal is squarely covered by a decision of this Tribunal inGlobal Earth Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI\n\nAppeal No.212 of 2020 decided on September 14, 2020.22. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The\n\nMisc. Application is disposed of accordingly.3. The present matter was heard through video conference\n\ndue to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign\n\na copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be\n\nissued by the Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be\n\ndigitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench\n\nand all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally\n\nsigned copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a\n\ndigitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.Justice Tarun Agarwala\n Presiding Officer\n\n\n\n\n Justice M. T. Joshi\n RAJALA Digitally signed\n by RAJALAKSHMI\n Judicial Member\n09.02.2022 KSHMI HDate:NAIR\n 2022.02.16\nPK H NAIR 11:01:51 +05'30' |
5cf14558-57ad-5dbb-91fb-2f6499eff71c | court_cases | National Green TribunalDcm Shriram Limited vs National Biodiversity Authority on 27 October, 2021Bench:K Ramakrishnan,K. SatyagopalItem No.03 to 05:\n\nBEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL\nSOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI\nAppeal No. 61 to 63 of 2021 (SZ)\n\n \n\n(Through Video Conference)\nIN THE MATTER OF:\n\n \n \n \n\nDCM Shriram Limited,\n\nNew Delhi. ... Appellant(s)\n\nThe National Bio-Diversity Authority,..\n\nRep. by its Member Secgetary,\nChennai. = a\n\n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n\nDate of hearing Ayvvro:\nCORAM: _o\n\n&\n\n \n \n \n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\nJUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICI\n\nMr. ReSa\n\n \n\nravanan represente\nMr. TAS ikeiShnan (all the ¢\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n&...\n\n: 'or return of notice of the\n\n1. The above appeals have Beer\n\n \n\n"posted to-to\n\n \n\nrespondent and also for filing heir indépéiident response. Respondent inall the cases entered appearance through standing counsel. So service is\ncomplete.2. The respondent is directed to file their reply statements regarding the\n\nallegations made in the appeal memorandum and in support of the order\n \n\npassed by them which is under challenge on or before 18.11.2021 and\nget ready with the appeal for hearing on 25.11.2021.3. The respondent is also directed to serve a copy of the objections filed to\nthe counsel appearing for the appellant well in advance, so that they can\n\nfile their rejoinder, if any, to the same, before the next hearing date and\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\nget ready with the appeal by ' + pleadings.4. For completion of pleadings an earing, post on 25.11.2021.Appeal No..61 |
284ad655-cfa3-5ef2-a013-013fef918f3a | court_cases | Supreme Court - Daily OrdersUnion Of India vs Pankaj Sheth on 29 June, 2021ITEM NO.13 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS\n\n SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.10765/2021\n\n (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-05-2019\n in WPL No. 1476/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at\n Bombay)\n\n UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioner(s)\n VERSUS\n\n PANKAJ SHETH Respondent(s)\n\n (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.60270/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY\n IN FILING SLP)\n\n Date : 29-06-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.\n\n CORAM :\n HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY\n\n For Petitioner(s)\n Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG\n Ms. Swaroopma Chaturvedi, Adv.\n Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.\n Mr. Sidharth Singh, Adv.\n Mr. Divyan Hirathi, Adv.\n Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR\n For Respondent(s)\n\n\n UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E RThe Court is convened through Video Conferencing.Delay condoned.Having heard learned Additional Solicitor General appearing\n for the petitioners - Union of India and carefully perusing the\n material available on record, we are not inclined to interfere with\n the impugned order passed by the High Court.\nSignature Not Verified\n\nDigitally signed by\nVishal Anand\nDate: 2021.06.29\n The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.\n16:53:52 IST\nReason:At this stage, a request is made by the learned Additional\n Solicitor General that the High Court may be requested to dispose\n of the matter pending before it.-2-In view of the above, we request the High Court to dispose of\nthe Writ Petition, pending adjudication before it, preferably\nwithin a period of six months from the date of communication of\nthis order.(VISHAL ANAND) (R.S. NARAYANAN)\nASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) |
7a3e24e1-ff19-5c64-a89c-58befe884f0e | court_cases | Jharkhand High CourtVishal Nath Sahdeo vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 15 October, 2020Author:Anil Kumar ChoudharyBench:Anil Kumar ChoudharyIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n A.B.A. No. 5104 of 2020\n ------Vishal Nath Sahdeo ... Petitioner\n Versus\n The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party\n ------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate\n For the State : Mr. P. Chatterjee, Addl. P.P.------Order No.02 Dated- 15.10.2020\n\n Heard the parties through video conferencing.\n Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to\n remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two\n weeks after the lockdown period is over.In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for\n the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are\n ignored for the present.Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this\n Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with\n Kuru P.S. Case No.86 of 2020 registered undersections 379of the\n Indian Penal Code, Rules 4/30/32/54 (1) OF Jharkhand Minor\n Mineral Concession Rule, 2004 (Amended 2017).The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the\n allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner\n of brick kiln and was loading kiln without depositing royalty. It is\n further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all\n false and drawing attention of this Court to page nos.18-22 of the\n brief, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that\n the petitioner has deposited the royalty amount. It is then\n submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish\n sufficient security including cash security and undertakes to\n cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted\n that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of\n anticipatory bail.Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as\n discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the\n above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.\n Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of\n eight weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail\n on depositing cash security of Rs.10,000/- and on furnishing bail\n bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two\n sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned\n A.C.J.M., Lohardaga, in connection with Kuru P.S. Case No.86 of\n 2020 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the\n investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating\n Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile\n number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the\n undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the\n pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down undersection 438 (2)Cr. P.C.\n\n\n\n\n (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)\nSonu/Gunjan- |
7467f005-b39c-547c-9180-f87a3de4acb5 | court_cases | Bombay High CourtCentral Bureau Of Investigation vs Chandrappa Nagappa Kembhavi & Ors on 3 February, 2020Bench: K.R. Sriram1/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.228 OF 2001\n Central Bureau of Investigation )\n Anti Corruption Branch, 11-A, Tanna House, )\n Nathalal Parekh Marg, Colaba, Mumbai 400 )\n 039 vide their R.C. No.39/96 ) ....Appellant/Complainant\n V/s.\n 1. Chandrappa Nagappa Kembhavi )\n Aged about 55 years, permanently residing at )\n 76, Vasant Nagar, Vijapur Road, Solapur )\n 2. The State of Maharashtra ) .....Respondent/Accused\n ----\nMs. Shubhada D. Khot, APP for Appellant.\nMs. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for State - respondent no.2.\nMs. Ayushi Anandpara, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae.\n ----\n CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY 2020\nORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n1 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated5th September 2000 passed by the Special Judge, Solapur, acquitting\n\nrespondent (accused) of offences punishable underSection 7,Section 13(2)\n\nread withSection 13(1) (d) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988(PC Act).\n\n\n2 On 6th January 2020 since nobody was present in Court\n\nrepresenting respondent no.1, the Court appointed Ms. Ayushi Anandpara,\n\nan Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. Before I proceed with the case, I must\n\nexpress my appreciation for the distinguished assistance rendered by\n\nMs. Ayushi Anandpara, learned Amicus Curiae. The endeavour put forth by\n\nMs. Anandpara, Amicus Curiae, has been of immense value in rendering the\n\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::2/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\njudgment.3 It is the case of prosecution that accused Chandrappa Nagappa\n\nKembhavi was working as a Sub-divisional Officer of Phones (external) in\n\nthe office of Telecom Department as District Manager, Solapur. Accused, on\n\n15th May 1996, demanded Rs.600/-, which was reduced to Rs.500/-, as\n\nillegal gratification other than regular remuneration for showing the favour\n\nto complainant (PW-1) Mehboobsab Pailwan, a vegetable merchant of\n\nSolapur for urgent and early installation of new telephone connection\n\nallotted to complainant in his shop premises bearing no.D-26, Siddheshwar\n\nMarket Yard, Solapur. Accused is alleged to have agreed to accept the\n\namount on 16th May 1996 in the shop of complainant at about 4.00 p.m.\n\n4 The charge framed against accused reads as under :"That you in the month of May 1996, while functioning as the Sub-\n Divisional Officer of Phones in the office of the Telecom District\n Manager, Solapur and as such a public servant, demanded a sum of\n Rs.600/- on 15-5-96 as a illegal gratification, other than regular\n remuneration as a motive or reward for showing favour in exercise of\n your official function to the complainant Shri Mahiboobsaheb\n Sharifsaheb Pailwan, a vegetable merchant of Solapur to wit, for\n expediting installation of new telephone connection allotted to the\n said complainant Shri M.S. Pailwan at his shop premises situated at\n Shop No.26, E, Sidheshwar Bhavan, Market yard, Solapur and\n reduced the said amount to Rs.500/- and further agreed to accept the\n said amount of Rs.500/- on 16-5-96, in complainant M.S. Pailwan's\n said shop at about 4.00 p.m. However, on 16-5-1996 you did not visit\n the shop of complainant Shri M.S. Pailwan at the appointed time for\n accepting the agreed bribe amount. Thereafter on 17-5-96 in the\n morning hours you contacted complainant M.S. Pailwan, on his\n telephone at his residence, asking him to keep the agreed bribe\n amount of Rs.500/- ready with him and told him that the said amount\n would be collected by you from the shop of complainant on that day,\n i.e., on 17-5-96 at about 11.00 A.M. to 11.30 A.M.And in pursuance of the aforesaid demand on 17-5-96 you actually\n accepted the illegal gratification amount of Rs.500/- from the\n complainant Shri M.S. Pailwan, and thereby committed an offence\n punishable underSection 7of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::3/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n and within my cognizance.That during the aforesaid period you being sub Divisional Officer of\n phones in the office of the Telecom District Manager, Solapur, and as\n such a public servant have obtained yourself, as a pecunary advantage\n of Rs.500/- on 17-5-96 from complainant Shri M.S. Pailwan by\n corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as a\n public servant and thereby committed an offence punishable underSection 13(2) read withSection 13(1) (d) ofPrevention of\n Corruption Act1988 and within my cognizance.And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the said charge.\n\n\n5 I have reproduced the charge because it is the case of\n\ncomplainant that his application was to transfer an existing telephone\n\nconnection no.328344 from Gala No.D-26 to Gala No.67-E. It is not\n\ncomplainant's case that the application, which was pending, for which\n\naccused demanded money, was for a new connection at Gala No.67-E as\n\nmentioned in the chargesheet.6 Prosecution arranged a trap on 16th May 1996 but the trap was\n\nunsuccessful as accused did not arrive at the time fixed. Thereafter, on\n\n17th May 1996 according to complainant accused gave him a call over\n\ntelephone at about 8.00 a.m. on the telephone at his residence (the evidence\n\ndo not indicate any telephone connection at the residence of complainant\n\nbecause complainant has all through said he has telephone connections only\n\nat Gala D-26, Gala 67-E and a shop near J-Shell hall). It is also not\n\ncomplainant's case that his residence was connected to one of the galas. It\n\nseems accused informed complainant that he would visit on 17 th May 1996 at\n\nabout 11.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. at which time complainant should pay the\n\nbribe amount of Rs.500/-. Prosecution has alleged that respondent\n\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::4/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\ndemanded an amount of Rs.500/- on 17 th May 1996 and actually accepted\n\nthe same from PW-1 and thereby respondent has committed an offence\n\npunishable underSection 7of PC Act. It is prosecution's case that on the\n\nsame day, time and place, accused in the capacity being public servant had\n\nobtained an amount of Rs.500/- by way of pecuniary advantage by following\n\ncorrupt and illegal means and thereby committed offence punishable underSection 13(2) read withSection 13(1) (d) ofPC Act.\n\n7 PW-6 - Mohamad Yunus Ismail Shaikh, Police Inspector, A.C.B.\n\nSolapur, investigated the matter and after obtaining necessary sanction, filed\n\nthis complaint. During the investigation, the house of accused was also\n\nsearched but nothing incriminating was found. Statement of complainant,\n\npanch witnesses and others were recorded and after obtaining a sanction\n\nagainst accused from respondent no.9, a complaint was filed and accused\n\nwas chargesheeted. Accused pleaded not guilty to any of the charges and\n\nclaimed to be tried.8 To drive home its charge, prosecution led evidence of nine\n\nwitnesses, viz., Mehboob Mohammad Sharif Pahelwan, complainant as PW-1,\n\nDilip Savale, panch witness as PW-2, Ayub Makulsahab Kamtikar, brother-in-\n\nlaw of PW-1 as PW-3, Arun Shridhar Pathak, Assistant General Manager,\n\nPublic Relations, Telecom Department as PW-4, Chakradhar Ventrapragada\n\nNarayanrao, Division Engineer (Rural), Telecom Department, Solapur as\n\nPW-5, Mohamed Ismail Sheikh, Police Inspector, A.C.B., Solapur as PW-6,\n\nVinayak Shankarrao Suryavanshi, Police Inspector, C.B.I., Jodhpur as PW-7,\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::5/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\nBalasaheb Rangnath Sahani, Police Inspector, C.B.I. as PW-8 and Pradhan\n\nShambhu Saran, Member Services, Telecom Communication as PW-9.\n\n9 Various documents were also exhibited. After recording\n\nevidence, the statement of accused underSection 313of the Code of\n\nCriminal Procedure was recorded and the stand of accused was of total\n\ndenial. After considering the evidence, the impugned judgment was passed\n\non various grounds.10 The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal V/s. State of U.P. 1\n has culled out\n\nthe factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal\n\nagainst acquittal. Paragraphs 72 and 73 of the said judgment read as under :72. The following principles emerge from the cases above :1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against\n acquittal underSection 378and386of the Criminal Procedure Code,\n 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can\n reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's\n conclusion with respect to both facts and law.2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial\n court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is\n innocent.3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial\n court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at\n issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the\n evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for\n holding that trial court was wrong.73. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts\n should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of\n judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's\n acquittal :1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial\n court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for\n doing so.1. (2008) 10 SCC 450\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::6/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have\n "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's\n decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when :i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of\n justice";iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was\n patently illegal;v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material\n evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/\n report of the Ballistic expert, etc.vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration\n to the findings of the trial court.3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal,\n the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in\n favour of the accused.The Apex Court in many other judgments including Muralidhar\n\nand Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka 2 has held that unless, the conclusions\n\nreached by the Trial Court are found to be palpably wrong or based on\n\nerroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they\n\nare likely to result in grave injustice. Appellate Court should not interfere\n\nwith the conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely\n\nbecause the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the\n\nevidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment\n\nof acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible\n\nview.2. 2014 (5) SCC 730\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::7/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.docWe must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of\n\ninnocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened by\n\nthe order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court.The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat 3\n\n\n\nhas held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that the\n\norder of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court finds\n\nthe order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably\n\nunsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its\n\nown conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was\n\nnothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the\n\nAppeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own\n\nconclusions.11 In so far as the offence underSection 7of PC Act is concerned, it\n\nis a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non\n\nto constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot\n\nconstitute the offence underSection 7unless it is proved beyond all\n\nreasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing\n\nit to be a bribe. This position has been well laid down in several judgments\n\nof the Apex Court and all other High Courts including Bombay High Court\n\n(B. Jayaraj V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh4 ).12 I have perused the impugned judgment, considered the evidence\n\nand also heard Ms. Khot, learned APP and Ms. Anandpara, the Amicus3. 1996 SCC (Cri) 9724. 1996 SCC (Cri) 972\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::8/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\nCuriae. I do not find anything palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or\n\ndemonstrably unsustainable in the impugned judgment. Having considered\n\nthe evidence, prosecution, in my view, has miserably failed in proving that\n\nthere was a demand and acceptance also.13 As stated earlier, the entire case of complainant was that he had\n\na telephone connection no.328344 at his Gala D-26, which due to his\n\nincrease in business, he wanted to shift to Gala 67-E and he had filed\n\nnecessary application. PW-1 says that accused made a demand of bribe on\n\n15th May 1996 for transfer of the said telephone connection no.328344 from\n\nGala D-26 to Gala 67-E and the demand was repeated on 17 th May 1996 and\n\nthe bribe amount was given at his unnumbered gala near J-Shell hall,\n\nSolapur. However, PW-2, who is a panch witness, and PW-6, who is an\n\nInvestigating Officer of A.C.B., both state that the trap was arranged in Gala\n\nNo.67-E and the bribe amount was also demanded in Gala 67-E and the\n\namount was also paid in Gala 67-E. That is how the panchnama also is\n\nrecorded and PW-2 and PW-6 also repeated the same in their evidence. PW-1\n\nin his cross examination states that he informed while lodging his complaint\n\n(Exhibit 20) that the place where the complainant was going to collect the\n\nbribe amount was the shop premises near J-Shell hall but he cannot assign\n\nwhy there is no reference to his shop near J-Shell hall in the complaint. PW-1\n\nalso says that he informed the Investigating Officer (PW-6) that the amount\n\nwas to be accepted by accused in his shop near J-Shell hall on 16 th May 1996\n\nand both the panchas were not present. PW-1 also admits in his cross\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::9/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\nexamination that he told PW-6 that accused will attend the shop near J-Shell\n\nhall in order to accept the amount as demanded by him and he was not told\n\nby PW-6 that he and PW-2 shall stand near the shop premises bearing no.67-\n\nE. PW-1 also denies that he or PW-2 sat in the premises of Gala No.67-E at\n\nabout 4.00 p.m. on 16th May 1996 waiting for the arrival of accused or was\n\nhe present in that shop alongwith PW-2 till 6.30 p.m. PW-1 also denies that\n\nhe told PW-6 that accused did not attend shop premises bearing no.67-E.\n\nPW-1 denies that what is stated in his statement recorded underSection 161of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was given instructions by PW-6\n\nthat he should be in the shop premises bearing no.67-E, Siddheshwar Market\n\nYard, Solapur alongwith PW-2 is not correct. PW-1 also states that it is not\n\ntrue to state as recorded in his statement underSection 161of the Code of\n\nCriminal Procedure, that he and PW-2 remained present in Gala no.67-E or\n\nthat he and PW-2 were waiting for accused upto 6.30 p.m. in Gala no.67-E.\n\nPW-1 states that he did not even disclose to PW-6 that PW-1 and members of\n\nraiding party and panch no.2 - Potphode were present near Gala no.67-E by\n\nwatching the arrival of accused and he never mentioned any of these things\n\nto PW-6 when his statement was recorded. PW-1 categorically states "I have\n\nalready told you that I was not present in shop premises bearing no.67-E,\n\nalongwith panch no.1, as suggested by you, on 16.05.96. According to me, I\n\nmyself and panch no.1, were waiting for the accused on 16.5.96, in the cabin\n\nof J-Shell hall, Siddheshwar Market Yard, Solapur". The same thing appears\n\neven as regards the place where the bribe amount was asked for, given,\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::10/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\ntrapped and accused allegedly was caught red handed. Everywhere the place\n\nshown is Gala no.67-E, whereas it is the case of complainant that it\n\nhappened in the premises near J-Shell hall.14 At the cost of repetition, I would say the application, for which\n\nPW-1 had approached accused, was to transfer his telephone no.328344\n\nwhich was installed in Gala no.D-26 to Gala no.67-E and the demand of\n\nbribe and giving bribe is between 15 th May 1996 and 17th May 1996. PW-4,\n\nwho was working in Telecom Department as Assistant General Manager\n\n(Planning Department), Solapur Division, has in his evidence stated that the\n\ntelephone no.328344 was allotted to PW-1 and also installed only on\n\n28th June 1996. That also shows the case of the prosecution is improbable.\n\n15 As regards the sanction to prosecute accused, the sanctioning\n\nauthority (PW-9) says after receipt of papers he studied the entire matter and\n\ncame to a conclusion that there was prima facie case against accused in\n\nconnection with allegations made against him. Therefore, after completion of\n\nentire study of investigation papers, he signed the draft sanction by passing\n\nthe order that the case be lodged against accused underPC Act. The fact that\n\nPW-9 has not applied his mind is evident from the cross examination. The\n\ndocuments, which were provided to PW-9 alongwith the papers, are at\n\nExhibit 67. Ms. Khot, learned APP states that the documents submitted with\n\nthe proposed charge were in Marathi language. In his cross examination,\n\nPW-9 admits that he does not know Marathi language, reading and writing.\n\nPW-9 also says that possibly an English translation might have been supplied\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::11/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\nto him alongwith Marathi language documents. Therefore, PW-9 assumes\n\nthat an English translation was provided. No such endorsement is made in\n\nhis sanction order. PW-9 also does not confirm that he was satisfied with the\n\nso called translation and it was a true and correct translation.\n\n16 The Apex Court in P. L. Tatwal V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh 5\n\nhas held that grant of sanction is a serious exercise of power by the\n\ncompetent authority who has to take a conscious decision on the basis of\n\nrelevant materials. The purpose of grant of sanction and the principles\n\ngoverning the issue can be found in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said\n\njudgment, which read as under :12. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function. It is\n intended to protect public servants against frivolous and vexatious\n litigation. It also ensures that a dishonest officer is brought before law\n and is tried in accordance with law. Thus, it is a serious exercise of power\n by the competent authority. It has to be apprised of all the relevant\n materials, and on such materials, the authority has to take a conscious\n decision as to whether the facts would reveal the commission of an\n offence under the relevant provisions. No doubt, an elaborate discussion\n in that regard in the order is not necessary. But decision making on\n relevant materials should be reflected in the order and if not, it should be\n capable of proof before the court.13. In a recent decision in State of Maharashtra throughCentral Bureau\n of Investigation v. Mahesh G. Jain, the court has referred to the various\n decisions on this aspect from paragraph 8 onwards. It has been held at\n paragraph 8 as follows :"8.In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. this Court lucidly\n registered the view that (SCC p. 174, para 3) it is incumbent on the\n prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the\n sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction\n has been made out constituting an offence and the same should be\n done in two ways; either (i) by producing the original sanction\n which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the\n grounds of satisfaction, and (ii) by adducing evidence aliunde to\n show the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the\n satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted\n without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest\n defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void5. (2014) 11 SCC 431\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::12/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n ab initio."14. After referring to subsequent decisions, the main principles governing\n the issue have been culled out at paragraph 14 which reads as follows :\n "14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction\n has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a\n case for sanction has been made out.14.2. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning\n authority has perused the material placed before it and, after\n consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.\n 14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the\n material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction\n was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.\n 14.4. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the\n sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that\n relevant facts would constitute the offence.14.5. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority\n cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the\n sanction order.14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed\n before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate\n the order of sanction.14.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a\n safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants,\n but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a\n pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to\n test its validity."(emphasis supplied)\n\n\n\n17 Moreover, a learned single Judge of this court (S.B.Shukre, J.) in\n\nState of Maharashtra through Deputy Superintendent of Police ACB Nagpur\n\nV/s. Devidas s/o. Narayanrao Bobde 6 has held that signing on draft sanction\n\norder submitted by A.C.B would indicate non application of mind and by\n\nsigning the draft sanction order the sanctioning authority has not ascertained\n\nthe root cause of the demand of bribe by respondent. Moreover, PW-9 has\n\nadmitted that he does not read or understand Marathi language. On this\n\nground alone, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio.6. 2014 SCC Online Bom.1045\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::13/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n18 The Apex Court in Chandrappa & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka7\n\nin paragraph 42 has laid down the general principles regarding powers of the\n\nAppellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.\n\nParagraph 42 reads as under :"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following\n general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing\n with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;\n (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and\n reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;\n (2)The Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,\n restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate\n Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on\n questions of fact and of law;(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons',\n 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted\n conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail\n extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal.\n Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to\n emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with\n acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence\n and to come to its own conclusion.(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of\n acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the the accused.\n Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the\n fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall\n be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent\n court of law. Secondly, the the accused having secured his acquittal,\n the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and\n strengthened by the trial court.(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the\n evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding\n of acquittal recorded by the trial court."19 There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption\n\nin favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the\n\naccused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every\n\nperson shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a\n\ncompetent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured acquittal, the7. (2007) 4 SCC 415\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::14/14 205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\npresumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and\n\nstrengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court\n\nobserved that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.\n\n\n20 In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court\n\ncannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of\n\nacquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. I cannot find any fault with\n\nthe judgment of the Trial Court.21 Appeal dismissed.\n\n22 The Government/Appropriate Authority shall pay over torespondent, within a period of 30 days from today, all pensionary or other\n\nbenefits/dues stalled, in view of pendency of this appeal. No authority shall\n\ndemand certified copy for reimbursing the benefits/dues as directed above.\n\nAll to act on authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy expedited. If\n\nduring the service, in view of this matter, the promotions or increments of\n\naccused have been affected, the concerned Authority/Department will pay,\n\nproceed and calculate on the basis that there was no such matter ever on\n\nrecord against accused and will factor in all promotions and increments that\n\naccused would have been entitled to and all the amounts shall be\n\naccordingly paid within 30 days.After 30 days interest at 12% p.a. will have to be paid by\n\nGovernment/ Appropriate Authority to respondent.(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 ::: |
ab23b717-b151-5240-8707-663242702516 | court_cases | Himachal Pradesh High CourtSh. Vikas Arora vs Sh. Naveen Arora on 23 November, 2022Author:Ajay Mohan GoelBench:Ajay Mohan GoelIN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA\n\n Cr. Revision No. : 453 of 2019\n Decided on : 23.11.2022\n\n\n\n\n .\n\n Sh. Vikas Arora ....Petitioner.\n\n Versus\n\n\n\n\n\n Sh. Naveen Arora ...Respondent.\n Coram\n The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.\n\n\n\n\n\n Whether approved for reporting?1\n For the petitioner : Mr. Parikshit, Advocate vice Mr. Vipin\n r Pandit, Advocate.\n\n For the respondent : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate.\n\n Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)Cr.Rev. No. 453 of 2019 & Cr.M.P. No. 897 of2022By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has\n\n\n\n\n assailed the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional\n\n Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kasauli, District Solan,\n\n\n\n\n\n H.P., in case No. 37-3 of 2016, titled asNaveen Arora vs. Vikas\n\n\n\n\n\n Arora, which criminal case stood disposed of by learned Trial\n\n Court by convicting and sentencing the present petitioner, vide\n\n judgment/order of sentence dated 24.04.2019/07.05.2019, to\n\n undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to\n\n pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- to the\n\n\n 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2022 20:33:49 :::CIS2complainant, as well as the judgment passed in appeal by the\n\n Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan,\n\n\n\n\n .Himachal Pradesh. i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 29-S/10 of 2019,\n\n\n\n\n\n titled asShri Vikas Arora vs. Shri Naveen Arora, dated\n\n\n\n\n\n 21.09.2019, vide which, the judgment passed by learned Trial\n\n Court was upheld by the learned Appellate Court and the appeal\n\n filed by the present petitioner against the judgment passed by\n\n\n\n\n\n learned Trial Court was dismissed.2. When this case was listed before the Court on\n\n 14.11.2022, the following order was passed:-"Criminal Revision No. 453 of 2019 has been filed by the\n petitioner feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated\n\n\n 24.04.2019/07.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional\n Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. in\n Complaint No. 37/03 of 2016, titled asNaveen Arora Vs. Vikas\n\n\n\n\n Arora, as affirmed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan,\n\n\n\n\n\n H.P. vide judgment dated 21.09.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal\n No. 29- S/10 of 2019, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been\n\n\n\n\n\n convicted for commission of offence punishable underSection 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Similarly, Criminal Revision No. 454 of 2019 has been filed\n by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated\n 25.04.2019/07.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional\n Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. in\n Complaint No. 36/03 of 2016, titled asNaveen Arora Vs. Vikas\n Arora, as affirmed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan,\n H.P. vide judgment dated 21.09.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal\n No. 28-S/10 of 2019, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2022 20:33:49 :::CIS3convicted for commission of offence punishable underSection 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Mr. Vipin Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner(s)\n\n\n\n\n .submits that as the compensation amount has been deposited by the\n\n\n\n\n\n petitioner in both the cases, therefore, it will be in the interest of\n justice in case the prayer of the petitioner for compounding of the\n\n\n\n\n\n offence is considered sympathetically and the amount which has\n been deposited by the petitioner, is ordered to be released in favour\n of the respondent.Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the\n respondent submits that in view of the statement which was made in\n the open Court by the respondent on the last date of hearing, i.e.,\n\n on 14th October, 2022, he has no objection if the Court considers\n\n sympathetically the prayer of the petitioner for compounding of the\n offence, provided the amount which has been deposited by the\n petitioner is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent.Taking into consideration the respective contentions of\n learned counsel for the parties, the cases are ordered to be listed\n on 23rd November, 2022, on which date, the prayer of the\n\n\n\n\n petitioner for compounding of the offence shall be considered,\n\n\n\n\n\n subject to his depositing Rs.5000/- as compounding fee, in each\n case before the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.\n In the meanwhile, the amount which has been deposited by the\n\n\n\n\n\n petitioner is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent,\n with up-to-date interest, in his bank account, details whereof shall\n be provided by learned counsel for the respondent with the\n Registry, where the money is lying deposit"3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has moved an\n\n application for compounding of the offence. He stated that the\n\n amount of Rs.5000/- as compounding fee in terms of the::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2022 20:33:49 :::CIS4directions passed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2022,\n\n stands deposited by the petitioner with State Legal Services\n\n\n\n\n .Authority Shimla.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in\n\n\n\n\n\n view of said development, it will be in the interest of justice, in\n\n case, this Court exercises its power of compounding the offence\n\n in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inDamodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.(2010) 5 Supreme\n\n Court Cases 663.5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and\n\n taking into consideration the fact that the matter, which led to\n\n filing of the criminal case underSection 138of the Negotiable\n\n\n\n Instruments Act, now stands settled between the parties and as\n\n\n\n\n per directions of the Court, the amount in terms of the\n\n directions passed by the Court as compounding fee already\n\n\n\n\n\n stand deposited with HP State Legal Services Authority, Shimla,\n\n\n\n\n\n this Court orders the compounding of the offence in question. As\n\n a consequence, the judgment as well as order of sentence passed\n\n by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1,\n\n Kasauli, H.P., in case No. 37-3 of 2016, titled as Sh. Naveen\n\n Arora vs. Sh. Vikas Arora, dated 24.04.2019/07.05.2019, as\n\n also the judgment passed in appeal by learned Sessions Judge,\n\n Solan, District Solan, H.P. dated 21.09.2019, in Criminal Appeal::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2022 20:33:49 :::CIS5No. 29-S/10 of 2019, titled as Sh.Vikas Arora vs.Sh.Naveen\n\n Arora, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of\n\n\n\n\n .sentence passed by learned Trial Court, are ordered to be set\n\n\n\n\n\n aside.6. The petition as well as application filed for\n\n compounding of the offence stand disposed of in above terms, so\n\n also any other pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.(Ajay Mohan Goel)\n Judge\n November 23, 2022\n (narender)::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2022 20:33:49 :::CIS |
5364fed9-715f-5785-9e6d-7572fe22e457 | court_cases | Kerala High CourtJencin Mathew vs Boby.P.Augustine on 7 January, 2020Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 20Bench:K.Harilal,C.S.DiasIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\n PRESENT\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL\n\n &\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS\n\nTUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941\n\n Mat.Appeal.No.66 OF 2019\n\n AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 261/2015 DATED 21-11-2018 OF\n FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA\n\nAPPELLANT/PETITIONER:\n\n JENCIN MATHEW,\n AGED 36 YEARS\n D/O.MATHEW, RESIDING AT NADUVILEDATHU HOUSE,\n KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KIZHAKOMBU P.O,\n KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,\n ERNAKULAM, PIN- 686662.\n BY ADVS.\n SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN\n SRI.I.K.RAJU\n SMT.THUSHARA.V\nRESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:\n 1 BOBY.P.AUGUSTINE,\n AGED 38 YEARS\n S/O.AUGUSTINE, RESIDING AT PANNIVALLIYAVIL\n HOUSE, KADANADU KARA AND VILLAGE,\n KADANALMEENACHIL POST, MEENACHIL TALUK,\n KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686653.\n\n 2 AUGUSTINE @ BABY,\n AGED 60 YEARS\n PANNIVALLIYAVIL HOUSE, KADANADU KARA AND\n VILLAGE, KADANAL MEENACHIL-POST, MEENACHIL\n TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686653.\n\n R2 BY ADV. DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY\n\n THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON\n18-12-2019, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.393/2019, THE COURT ON\n7.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 2019\n 2\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\n PRESENT\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL\n\n &\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS\n\nTUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941\n\n Mat.Appeal.No.393 OF 2019\n\n AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A 221/2019 IN O.P 261/2015 OF\n FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA\n\nAPPELLANT/S:\n\n 1 BOBBY. P.AUGUSTINE\n AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.AUGUSTINE, PANNIVALLIYAVIL\n HOUSE, KADANADU KARA, KADANADU VILLAGE,\n MEENACHIL TALUK.\n\n 2 BABY AUGUSTINE,\n AGED 61 YEARS,S/O.AUGUSTINE, PANNIVALLIYAVIL\n HOUSE, KADANADU KARA, KADANADU VILLAGE,\n MEENACHIL TALUK.\n BY ADVS.\n SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)\n SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI\n SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE\nRESPONDENT/S:\n JENCIN MATHEW\n AGED 33 YEARS,D/O.MATHEW, NADUVILEDATHU\n HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM\n VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686661\n R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN\n R1 BY ADV. SRI.I.K.RAJU\n R1 BY ADV. SMT.THUSHARA.V\n\n THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON\n18-12-2019, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.66/2019, THE COURT ON\n7.1.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 2019\n 3\n:\n\n\n\n\n COMMON JUDGMENT(Dated this the 7th January, 2020)\n\n\n\n\nDias,J.The petitioner in O.P No.261/2015 on\n\nthe file of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha\n\nis the appellant in Mat.Appeal No.66/2019.\n\nThe 1st respondent in the appeal, the\n\nappellant's husband, is the 1st respondent\n\nand his father is the 2nd respondent in the\n\nabove appeal.2. Mat.Appeal No.393/2019 is filed by\n\nthe respondents in O.P.261/2015 (the\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 20194respondents in Mat.Appeal No.66/2019)\n\nchallenging the order passed in I.A\n\nNo.221/2019 in O.P 261/2015.3. Since the subsequent Mat.Appeal is\n\nfiled against a consequential order passed\n\nby the Family Court, these appeals are\n\nconsolidated, heard and disposed of by\n\nthis common judgment. The parties are for\n\nthe sake of convenience referred to as\n\n"petitioner" and "respondents", as per\n\ntheir status in O.P.261/2015.Mat.A 66/20194. The petitioner had filed\n\nO.P.261/2015 underSection 7(c)of the\n\nFamily Courts Act, seeking a decree for\n\nrecovery of money and her gold ornaments\n\nallegedly misappropriated by the\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 20195respondents. It was her case before the\n\nFamily Court that she was married to the\n\n1st respondent on 12.01.2012, as per the\n\nreligious rites and customs of their\n\ncommunity. The 2nd respondent is the father\n\nof the 1st respondent. She averred that at\n\nthe time of marriage she was employed as a\n\nNurse in the United Kingdom, and that the\n\n1st respondent was employed in Iraq. As\n\nthe marriage was an arranged one, an\n\namount of Rs.3 lakh was given to the 2nd\n\nrespondent on 7.1.2012, as the\n\npetitioner's share in her parental\n\nproperties. She also averred that she was\n\ngiven sixty sovereigns of gold ornaments\n\nat the time of marriage. The petitioner's\n\nparents also gifted a wrist chain\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 20196weighing three sovereigns and a gold ring\n\nweighing one sovereign. The petitioner\n\nalso had in her possession thirteen\n\nsovereigns of gold ornaments which was\n\npurchased with her own resources.5. The petitioner pleaded in the\n\noriginal petition that the respondents for\n\nthe purpose of the 1st respondent's\n\nsister's marriage demanded the\n\npetitioner's gold ornaments. While the\n\npetitioner was in the United Kingdom, the\n\nrespondents took away the petitioner's\n\ngold ornaments and pledged some of them.\n\nWhen the 1st respondent went on a visit to\n\nthe United Kingdom, the petitioner had\n\nentrusted with him 3,000 pounds (at that\n\npoint of time, the amount had a exchange\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 20197value of Rs.2,55,000/-).6. It was her further case that as\n\ndemanded by the respondents she had sent\n\nan amount of Rs.6,90,000/- which was\n\ncredited in the 1st respondent's bank\n\naccount. Later on, differences of opinion\n\narose between the couple, as the 1st\n\nrespondent manhandled the petitioner. The\n\n1st respondent, thereafter, filed an\n\noriginal petition before the Family Court,\n\nPala, seeking the permanent custody of\n\ntheir child. As the marital relationship\n\nwas irretrievably broken down, the\n\npetitioner no longer reposed trust and\n\nfaith in the respondents, and thus\n\ninstituted O.P.261/2015 seeking for\n\nrecovery of 73 sovereigns of her gold\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 20198ornaments that were allegedly\n\nmisappropriated by the respondents, and\n\nalso for a decree for recovery of\n\nRs.12,45,000/- from the respondents.7. The respondents appeared in the\n\ncase and filed a detailed written\n\nobjection. The respondents admitted the\n\nmarriage as well as the paternity of the\n\nchild. The respondents bluntly denied\n\nentrustment of money at the time of\n\nmarriage. The 1st respondent admitted that\n\nhe was gifted with a wrist chain, but\n\nonly weighing one sovereign. The\n\nrespondents never knew the quantity,\n\nquality or purity of the petitioner's gold\n\nornaments, which were always in her\n\npossession. The 1st respondent also denied\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 20199that he was given 3,000 pounds as alleged.\n\nThe respondents further averred that all\n\nthe petitioner's gold ornaments were kept\n\nin a locker in the joint names of the\n\ncouple at the State Bank of Travancore,\n\nKoothattukulam Branch. The 1st respondent,\n\nhowever, admitted that he had received an\n\namount of Rs.6 lakh in April, 2013 and\n\nRs.90,000/- on 6.8.2011. But, the\n\nrespondents took the defense that the\n\namount was handed over to the petitioner's\n\nfather in connection with her sister's\n\nmarriage and Rs.75,000/- was given as\n\nmaintenance expense to the petitioner's\n\nparental home.8. The petitioner and two witnesses\n\nwere examined as PW1 to PW3 and Exts.A1 to\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201910A3 were marked through them. The\n\nrespondents and three other witnesses\n\nwere examined as RW1 to RW4 and Exts.B1\n\nand B2 were marked through them. Exts.X1\n\nto X13 were summoned and marked through\n\nthe above witnesses.9. The Family Court after considering\n\nthe pleadings, the oral testimony of the\n\nwitnesses and the documentary evidence on\n\nrecord, partly allowed the original\n\npetition by directing the 1st respondent to\n\nreturn the wrist chain weighing one\n\nsovereign and permitting the petitioner to\n\nrealise an amount of Rs.4 lakh with\n\ninterest at the rate of 6% per annum from\n\nthe date of petition till the date of\n\nrealisation of the amount from the\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201911respondents and their assets.10. It is aggrieved by the rejection\n\nof the other claims of the petitioner that\n\nthe present Mat.Appeal is filed.Mat.Appeal 393/201911. The petitioner along with\n\nO.P.261/2015 had filed I.A No.412/2015\n\nseeking an order of attachment before\n\njudgment of the attachment scheduled\n\nproperties belonging to the 2nd respondent.\n\nThe Family Court passed an order of\n\nattachment before judgment.12. Subsequent to the judgment and\n\ndecree passed by the Family Court in\n\nO.P.261/2015, the 2nd respondent deposited\n\nthe decree amount of Rs.5,14,043/- before\n\nthe Family Court, and then filed I.A\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201912No.48/2019 seeking withdrawal of the\n\nattachment.13. The petitioner opposed the\n\napplication on the ground that Mat.Appeal\n\nNo.66/2019 is filed against the impugned\n\njudgment and decree, and that in the mean\n\ntime if the attachment is withdrawn, it\n\nwould cause substantial prejudice to the\n\npetitioner.The Family Court did not pass\n\nany order on the above application.14. Subsequently, the respondents filed\n\nI.A 221/2019 praying that the amount that\n\nhas been deposited before the Family Court\n\nmay be returned to the 2nd respondent since\n\nhe wanted to conduct his daughter's\n\nmarriage. He averred that the amount that\n\nwas deposited before the Family Court was\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201913borrowed by him from a third person, on\n\nthe belief that he could get the\n\nattachment withdrawn and then mortgage\n\nthe property. The petitioner opposed the\n\nsaid application also. The Family Court by\n\norder dated 16.4.2019 dismissed the\n\napplication on the ground that as per the\n\norder of this Court in I.A No.1/2019 in\n\nMat.A 66/2019, the attachment scheduled\n\nproperty is furnished as security and\n\nthat an additional amount may be decreed\n\nin Mat.Appeal 66/2019. Hence, the amount\n\nmay not be returned, and the attachment\n\nmay not be withdrawn. The Family Court\n\ndismissed the application. It is assailing\n\nthe said order that Mat.Appeal 393/2019 is\n\nfiled by the respondents.Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 20191415. We have heard Adv.Rakesh Roshan\n\nthe learned counsel for the appellant and\n\nAdv.Domson J.Vattakuzhy, the learned\n\ncounsel for the respondents.16. From the facts in the above\n\nappeals, the following points emerge for\n\ndetermination.(i) Whether the petitioner is\n entitled to recover 73 sovereigns\n of gold ornaments as claimed in\n O.P. 261/2015?(ii) Whether the petitioner\n is entitled to a decree forrecovery of money as claimed in the\n original petition?(iii) Whether the respondents\n are entitled to get the amount that\n was deposited as per I.A 48/2019 in\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201915O.P.261/2015 or get the attachment\n before judgment withdrawn?17. As the points are interweaved, we\n\nare considering them together.18. We have re-appreciated the entire\n\npleadings and evidence on record.19. This Court inBhaskaran v. Radha[2019 (3) KHC 960], Abubakker Labba v.\n\nShameena [2018 (3) KLT 196] and in Shinu\n\nP.K v.Dhanya Madhavan [2013 (3) KHC 735]\n\nhas succinctly laid down the law that,\n\nin a petition filed for return of gold\n\nornaments and money, there should be\n\nspecific pleadings and evidence describing\n\nthe details of the gold ornaments and the\n\nthe amount that were entrusted at the time\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201916of marriage. The initial onus of proof\n\nis on the wife to substantiate that the\n\namount and the gold ornaments were\n\nmisappropriated by the husband and his\n\nfamily, and that money was entrusted to\n\nthem in trust at the time of marriage.20. Keeping in mind the above\n\ndeclaration of law by this Court, we have\n\nperused the pleadings on record\n\npertaining to the alleged entrustment of\n\ngold and the money by the petitioner's\n\nfamily to the respondents. The counsel for\n\nthe appellant fairly concedes that there\n\nis no specific pleading in the original\n\npetition that Rs.3 lakh was entrusted at\n\nthe time of marriage. There is also no\n\nspecific plea that 73 sovereigns of gold\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201917ornaments were misappropriated by the\n\nrespondents. On the other hand, it is\n\nseen that the petitioner and the 1st\n\nrespondent had taken a joint locker in the\n\nState Bank of Travancore, Koothattukulam\n\nBranch, wherein the petitioner had kept\n\nher gold ornaments. The petitioner does\n\nnot have a case that during the said\n\nperiod, the 1st respondent had opened the\n\nlocker and taken away the gold ornaments.\n\nRegarding the allegation that the\n\npetitioner had entrusted 3000 pounds to\n\nthe 1st respondent, when he visited the\n\nUnited Kingdom, there is no evidence.21. The only fact that has been proved\n\nby the petitioner and admitted by the 1st\n\nrespondent was that an amount of\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201918Rs.6,90,000/- was sent by the petitioner\n\nto the 1st respondent and the amount was\n\ncredited to his bank account in State Bank\n\nof Travancore. The 1st respondent does\n\nnot deny that he has received the amount.\n\nBut, his case is that he entrusted the\n\namount to the petitioner's father towards\n\nthe marriage expenses of the petitioner's\n\nsister and for their house renovation\n\nwork. Therefore, going by the evidence of\n\nthe witnesses examined in the case, it is\n\nmanifestly established that an amount of\n\nRs.6,90,000/- was sent to the bank account\n\nof the 1st respondent. There is no\n\nevidence or proof regarding the\n\nentrustment of the earlier amount of Rs.3\n\nlakh and 3000 pounds and also the alleged\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201919misappropriation of the petitioner's gold\n\nornaments weighing 73 sovereigns. The\n\nFamily Court on a threadbare analysis of\n\npoint Nos.1 and 2 has discussed the\n\nmatter in detail. The entire evidence was\n\nevaluated by the Family Court, and the\n\nFamily Court rightly concluded that the\n\nrespondents had not misappropriated the\n\ngold ornaments or an amount of Rs.3 lakh\n\nwas entrusted to them.22. With reference to point No.3, the\n\nentrustment of 3000 pounds and\n\nRs.6,90,000/- being credited to the bank\n\naccount of the 1st respondent, the Family\n\nCourt, admittedly, by a guess work,\n\npresumed that the 1st respondent had given\n\nan amount of Rs.2,90,000/- to the\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201920petitioner's father. Thus, by the impugned\n\njudgment, 1st respondent has been directed\n\nto return Rs.4 lakh.23. On a re-appreciation of the finding\n\nof the Family Court in paragraph 18 of the\n\nimpugned judgment, it is seen that there\n\nis absolutely no evidence for the Family\n\nCourt to arrive at the conclusion that the\n\n1st respondent entrusted Rs.2,90,000/- to\n\nthe petitioner's father.24. The 1st respondent had not summoned\n\nand examined the concerned witnesses to\n\nprove that he had returned Rs.2,90,000/-\n\nfrom the amount that he received from the\n\npetitioner. The Family Court has in\n\nunequivocal words held that the finding\n\nis on the basis of guess work. Such\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201921guess work is impermissible in law. The\n\nFamily Court is bound to render specific\n\nfindings on the basis of the pleadings,\n\nissues formulated and evidence on record,\n\nto arrive at its conclusions. The\n\npetitioner had discharged her burden of\n\nproof by proving that the amount of\n\nRs.6,90,000/- was sent to the bank of the\n\n1st respondent. Thereafter, the onus of\n\nproof shifted on the 1st respondent to\n\nprove that he had handed over\n\nRs.2,90,000/- to the petitioner's father,\n\nas alleged in the written objection. But,\n\nthe 1st respondent has not discharged the\n\nburden by any cogent evidence that he\n\npaid Rs.2,90,000/- to the petitioner's\n\nfather. Thus, we are of the opinion that\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201922the 1st respondent is liable to return an\n\namount of Rs.6,90,000/- to the petitioner\n\nand that the petitioner is entitled to a\n\ndecree for realising an amount of\n\nRs.6,90,000/- from the 1st respondent\n\npersonally and from his assets. Thus,\n\npoint Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.\n\nAccordingly, we concur with the findingsof the Family Court on point Nos.1 and 2in the impugned judgment, but we modify\n\nthe decree permitting the petitioner to\n\nrealise an amount of Rs.4 lakh from the\n\nrespondents; instead, we permit the\n\npetitioner to recover an amount of\n\nRs.6,90,000/- from the 1st respondent\n\npersonally and from his assets.25. With regard to point No.4, i.e,\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201923pertaining to Mat.Appeal 393/2019, whether\n\nthe respondents are entitled to get the\n\namount of Rs.5,14,043/- returned to them\n\nand/or get the order of attachment before\n\njudgment withdrawn? we order that, in\n\nview of our findings in Mat.Appeal 66/2019\n\nthat the petitioner is entitled to recover\n\nan amount of Rs.6,90,000/- with interest\n\nat the rate of 6% per annum from the date\n\nof petition till the date of realisation\n\nfrom the 1st respondent and his assets,\n\nand that the 1st respondent is also liable\n\nto return the wrist chain weighing one\n\nsovereign of gold ornament, or its value\n\nthereof, we direct the respondents to\n\ndeposit the balance amount decreed in\n\nfavour of the petitioner as per this\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201924judgment and decree before the Family\n\ncourt, within three months from the date\n\nof receipt of a copy of this judgment. On\n\ndepositing the entire amount in\n\nfulfillment of this judgment and decree\n\nin Mat.Appeal No.66/2019, the attachment\n\nbefore judgment ordered in I.A No.412/2015\n\nshall stand withdrawn. In case the\n\nrespondents deposit the entire amount as\n\nordered by this Court in Mat.Appeal\n\nNo.66/2019, the Family Court shall\n\nwithdraw the attachment before judgment\n\nordered in I.A No.412/2015 in O.P.261/2015\n\nand communicate the same to the Sub\n\nRegistry Office, Ramapuram. The petitioner\n\nshall be at liberty to withdraw the entire\n\namount so deposited as per the procedure\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201925established in law.In the result, Mat.Appeal No.66/2019 is\n\nallowed in part as follows:(i) The 1st respondent is directed to\n\nreturn the wrist chain weighing one\n\nsovereign, failing which, the petitioner\n\nshall be entitled to realise its value as\n\non the date of the original petition with\n\n6% interest per annum from the date of\n\noriginal petition till the date of its\n\nrealisation from the 1st respondent\n\npersonally and from his properties.(ii) The petitioner is granted a\n\ndecree for realising an amount of\n\nRs.6,90,000/- with interest at the rate of\n\n6% per annum from the date of original\n\npetition till the date of realisation\n Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201926from the 1st respondent personally and from\n\nhis properties.(iii) The parties shall bear their\n\nrespective costs.Mat.Appeal 393/2019 is allowed in part,\n\nas follows:(i) The respondents are directed to\n\ndeposit the balance decree amount, as per\n\nthis judgment and decree passed by this\n\nCourt in Mat.A No.66/2019. The amount of\n\nRs.5,14,043/- already deposited shall be\n\ngiven credit by the Family Court.(ii) If the respondents deposit the\n\nremaining amount in fulfillment of this\n\njudgment and decree within three months\n\nfrom the date of obtaining a copy of this\n\njudgment, in addition to Rs.5,14,043/-Mat.A Nos.66 and 393 of 201927already deposited, the order of attachment\n\nbefore judgment ordered in I.A No.412/2015\n\nof the Family Court shall stand withdrawn,\n\nand the order shall be communicated to the\n\nSub Registry Office, Ramapuram. On such\n\ndeposit, the petitioner shall be at\n\nliberty to withdraw the entire amount\n\ndeposited as per the procedure established\n\nin law.(iii) The parties shall bear their\n\nrespective costs.Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE\n\nma/28/12/2019 Sd/-C.S.DIAS, JUDGE\n /True copy/\n P.S to Judge |
40b5204a-6993-5cd8-85fb-0ec4cecdbe61 | court_cases | Uttarakhand High CourtBA1/592/2021 on 8 June, 2021Author:R.C. KhulbeBench:R.C. KhulbeOffice Notes,\n reports, orders or\nSL. proceedings or\n Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS\nNo directions and\n Registrar's order\n with Signatures\n BA1 No. 592 of 2021\n\n Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for\n the applicant.Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief\n Holder for the State.Heard this matter through video\n conferencing.Accused-Raja Ram Bijalwan, who is\n in judicial custody in connection with\n case crime no. 256 of 2019 undersections 376and506IPC, registered at\n P.S. Nehru Colony, District Dehradun has\n sought his release on bail.As per the FIR, the informant/\n victim came in contact with the present\n accused through facebook and the\n accused disclosed that he is employed in\n Secretariat Dehradun. On 15.09.2017,\n accused called the informant/ victim at\n Mandakani Hotel, Dehradun on the\n pretext of some discussion and forcibly\n committed rape with her. Thereafter, he\n started blackmailing the victim and again\n called her in the same hotel on\n 08.10.2017. He took the victim in his\n rented room at Dharampur and\n committed rape. When the victim/\n informant insisted the accused to marry\n her, he refused and threatened her.It is argued by the learned counsel\n for the accused that the accused has\n falsely been implicated in the offence;\n there was a friendship between the\n accused and the informant; there was a\n consensual sex between the parties.In support of his contention, learned\n counsel placed reliance upon the\n judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in\nthe case ofPramod Suryabhan Pawar\nvs. State of Maharashtraand anr.,passed in CRLA No. 1165 of 2019wherein it is held that if there is no\nallegation to the effect that the promise\nto marry given to the informant was false\nfrom the very beginning, in that situation\nif any sexual intercourse was committed\nby the accused with the informant, the\naccused cannot be convicted undersection 376IPC. It is also submitted that\nthe informant was major. Accused is\nready to furnish the sureties.Per contra, learned State counsel\nopposed for bail.From the perusal of the FIR, it\nwould reveal that the accused called the\ninformant at Mandakini Hotel on\n15.09.2017 and committed rape with\nher. Again on 08.10.2017, the accused\ncalled the informant in the same hotel\nand again developed physical relations\nwith her forcibly. Thereafter, he took her\nat his rented accommodation at\nDharampur where he developed physical\nrelations with her by blackmailing her.\nWhen victim/informant insisted him to\nmarry her then the accused refused to do\nso. The victim was medically examined.\nAs per the medical report her hymen was\nfound torned. The statement of the\nvictim, undersection 164Cr.P.C. was\nrecorded wherein she repeated the\nincident as mentioned in the FIR.From the perusal of the FIR and the\nstatement of the victim, prima facie, it is\nclear that the accused committed rape\nwith the victim many times and when the\nvictim insisted the accused to marry her\nhe refused and threatened her. It is clear\nthat when the accused committed rape\n with the informant at that time there was\nno intention of the accused to marry the\ninformant while in the case ofPramod\nSuryabhan Pawar(supra) the accused\nmade physical relations with the\naggrieved on the pretext of the marriage.\nIt was a consensual sex while in the\npresent matter, there was no consensual\nsex.Looking into the gravity of the\noffence it is not a fit case for bail at this\nstage.The bail application is rejected\naccordingly.Pending application, if any, also\nstands disposed of.(R.C. Khulbe, J.)\n 08.06.2021\nParul |
ad5c461d-bd3a-5cc3-adcf-1a1ca336765e | court_cases | Supreme Court - Daily OrdersSanyokta Devi vs Union Of India on 2 February, 20231\n\n IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n Civil Appeal No.770/2023\n (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.31172/2017)\n\n SANYOKTA DEVI Appellant(s)\n\n VERSUS\n\n UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)\n O R D E R1. Leave granted.2. The appellant’s claim for award of compensation underSection\n\n 16of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was turned down by the\n\n Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna bench (in short: the Tribunal) vide\n\n an order dated 15102012. Her miscellaneous appeal against\n\n rejection of the claim was dismissed by the High Court of\n\n Judicature at Patna vide impugned Judgment dated 21062016. The\n\n appellant is now before this Court.3. The husband of the appellant, late Vijay Singh (“the\n\n deceased”) purchased a valid railway ticket on 21032002 and\n\n boarded the Bhagalpur – Danapur Intercity Express at Bakhtiyarpur\n\n to go to Patna.4. The case of the appellant was that the deceased accidentally\n\n fell down from the running train at the originating station itself,\n\n due to heavy rush inside the compartment. It appears that the\n\n deceased was crushed under the train and died instantly. One of the\nSignature Not Verified\n\nDigitally signed by\nVISHAL ANAND\n\n sons of the appellant, namely, Dilip Kumar is reported to have\nDate: 2023.02.09\n10:50:58 IST\nReason:stated before the Police Officers of the Government Railway Police\n\n Station, Bakhtiyarpur on 21032002 at 16:15 hours that at around22.002.30 pm, he was informed telephonically about his father\n\nhaving died in a rail accident. He reached at the spot of accident\n\nat around 4.15 pm and identified the dead body of his father and is\n\nalleged to have stated that “due to mental sickness from the last\n\n10 years, he used to roam here and there”. He is further stated to\n\nhave reported to the Police that his father had died after falling\n\nfrom the train, as per witnesses and nobody was at fault. An F.I.R.\n\nwas lodged on the basis of the said report.5. The appellant in her claim petition, filed on 29082002,\n\nspecifically averred that her husband was “mentally and physically\n\nhealthy and a fit person” and that her son Dilip Kumar never stated\n\nbefore the Police that his father had lost his mental balance. In\n\nsupport of her claim petition, the appellant filed an affidavit;\n\nappeared as a witness and was subjected to crossexamination. She\n\nspecifically denied the allegation that her husband’s mental\n\ncondition was not good.6. It was further averred that her son Dilip Kumar had given a\n\nstatement on 21032002 but the Police Officer of GRPS took his\n\nsignatures, distorted the facts and wrongly mentioned his statement\n\nwith regard to the mental health of her deceased husband. Dilip\n\nKumar, son of the appellant also filed an affidavit before the\n\nRailway Claims Tribunal on 24072012 stating that the\n\nInvestigating Officer had taken his signatures and later on,\n\nmisrepresented the facts and wrongly mentioned that his father was\n\nof unsound mind and used to wander here and there aimlessly. He3further averred that the Final Report of the Police was also\n\nfactually incorrect.7. It may also be noticed that in her affidavit filed in support\n\nof the Claim Petition, the appellant in para 10 specifically\n\ndisclosed that besides her the deceased was survived by two sons\n\nnamely, Dilip Kumar, aged 42 years, and Samir Kumar, aged 40 years,\n\nwho were not dependent on him and hence, she being the lone\n\ndependent of the deceased had filed the Claim Petition.8. The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s Claim Petition holding\n\nthat neither the appellant nor her son were to be believed.\n\nAccording to the Tribunal, Dilip Kumar, son of the appellant was\n\nnot aware of his father’s journey to Patna at the time when his\n\nstatement was recorded on 21032002 and that what was meticulously\n\naverred by the appellant in her Claim Petition also indicated that\n\nher version was an afterthought in order to receive the benefit of\n\ncompensation and she misrepresented the facts before the Tribunal.9. The High Court turned down the appellant’s challenge to the\n\nTribunal’s Order observing as follows:\n\n “6. Claim petition had alone been filed by Sanyukta Devi,\n wife without disclosing that how many siblings she had from\n her husband and further, petition was filed on behalf of\n all the siblings. Although presence of Dilip was there in\n the recital of the petition but the reasons best known to\n the claimant, she had not opted to allow him to stood over\n petition as a party. The aforesaid event was purposely made\n in the background of presence of mental condition of\n deceased having disclosed at the end of Dilip. That happens4to be reason behind that even during trial, a strange\n methodology was adopted by the claimant wherein withholding\n physical presence of Dilip for the purpose of\n crossexamination, filed his evidence on an affidavit & on\n account thereof, that had lost its legal identity.7. From the petition, it is apparent that claimant was well\n aware of the averments whatever been at the end of her son\n Dilip regarding mental condition of the deceased, which,\n neither been properly explained nor denied at the end of\n the claimant. However, during course of trial, while\n examining herself to be as AWl she stated under para9 of\n the affidavit that signature of Dilip was obtained by the\n police official on blank paper and then the narration was\n scribed in distorted way wherein purposely, intentionally\n and malafidely the mental condition of the deceased has\n been introduced by the police official that of unsound\n mind, which neither found in the petition nor has been\n substantiated by any cogent evidence that any sort of\n grudge was persisting which, provoked the police official\n to indulge in such kind of illegal activities. Furthermore,\n it was Dilip who was competent enough to depose, as\n fardbeyan was not recorded in the presence of claimant.”10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned\n\nAdditional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondent(s).11. With a view to ascertain the correctness of the rival pleas\n\nraised by the parties, original record of the Tribunal has been\n\nrequisitioned and perused.12. What emerges is the fact that the appellant’s claim was not\n\naccepted by both the Tribunal and the High Court solely on the\n\nground that the deceased was of unsound mind and he was knocked5down by an unidentified train.13. According to the Tribunal, had the deceased fallen from a\n\ncrowded train in the morning hours, the copassengers would have\n\ndefinitely known and taken proactive action, either by stopping\n\nthe train or by informing the Railway Authorities at the next\n\nstation.14. In our considered opinion, the reasons assigned by the\n\nTribunal and the High Court are completely absurd, imaginary and\n\ncontrary to the undisputed facts on record.15. There is no denial on behalf of the respondent(s) that the\n\ndeceased purchased a valid railway ticket to travel on the\n\nBhagalpur – Danapur Intercity Express from Bakhtiyarpur to go to\n\nPatna.16. He boarded the train and was travelling alone. Had he been of\n\nunsound mind, it would have been nearly impossible for him to\n\npurchase a ticket of a particular destination and board the train\n\nall by himself. These facts completely belie the allegations that\n\nthe deceased was of unsound mind.17. The fact that the deceased fell down from the train and thus\n\ndied in a railway accident is not in dispute. How and in what\n\nmanner the accident took place cannot be expected to be explained\n\nby the appellant as she was not accompanying her husband. In this\n\nregard, the son of the appellant – Dilip Kumar was equally helpless\n\nas he too was admittedly not present at the time and place of the\n\naccident.618. The Appellant’s claim on account of an admitted death of her\n\nhusband in a railway accident cannot be made dependent on the fact\n\nthat copassengers of the appellant’s husband made no attempt to\n\nstop the train or report the matter to the Railway Police\n\nAuthorities. Such an eventuality might not have arisen as soon\n\nafter the accident took place at the originating station itself,\n\nthe family was informed telephonically and within next two hours,\n\nformal First Information Report was lodged by the Railway Police at\n\nBakhtiyarpur Junction.19. There is no oral or documentary evidence to indicate the\n\nmental fitness of the deceased, except the statement alleged to\n\nhave been made by his own son Dilip Kumar pursuant to which First\n\nInformation Report was registered. The alleged statement cannot be\n\nheld to be a conclusive proof of the mental health condition of the\n\ndeceased, firstly, for the reason that Dilip Kumar subsequently on\n\naffidavit disowned any such statement; secondly, neither the\n\nrespondent(s) examined any covillager nor produced any medical\n\nproof to substantiate their defence. In fact, no such specific plea\n\nhas been taken by the respondent(s), except a question being put to\n\nthe appellant in her crossexamination where she stoutly\n\ncontroverted the said allegation and asserted that her husband was\n\nmentally fit.20. The Tribunal and the High Court have overlooked the fact that\n\nthe appellant successfully discharged the initial onus on her by\n\nproving that the deceased had bought a valid railway ticket and7boarded the train to reach the specified destination. It was a\n\ncompensatory claim, originating out of a social welfare\n\nlegislation, and such claim ought to have been examined on the\n\nbasis of preponderance of probabilities and not on the parameters\n\nof “beyond any reasonable doubt” as we often apply in a criminal\n\ntrial.21. We are thus of the view that the Tribunal and High Court have\n\nunreasonably turned down a fair and just claim of the appellant.22. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, the Appeal is\n\nallowed and the impugned order dated 15102012 passed by the\n\nRailway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench and impugned Judgment and\n\nOrder dated 21062016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at\n\nPatna are, hereby, set aside. The Claim Petition of the Appellant\n\nis allowed and she is held entitled to a compensation of\n\nRs.4,00,000/ (as was admissible at the relevant time) along with\n\ninterest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition\n\ntill its actual realization. The amount of compensation shall be\n\npaid to the appellant within two months.…………………………………………J\n (SURYA KANT)\n\n\n\n\n …………………………………………J\n (J.K. MAHESHWARI)\nNEW DELHI\n2ND FEBRUARY, 2023.8ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No.31172/2017\n\n(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated\n21062016 in MA No. 176/2013 passed by the High Court of\nJudicature at Patna)\n\nSANYOKTA DEVI Appellant(s)\n VERSUS\nUNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)\n\n(IA No. 32800/2021 APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No.\n32797/2021 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. & IA No. 32796/2021 \nPERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)\n\nDate : 02022023 This matter was called on for hearing today.\n\nCORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI\n\nFor Appellant(s)\n Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv.Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR\n Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.Mr. Agastya Sen, Adv.For Respondent(s)\n Mr. Jayant Kumar Sud, A.S.G.Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv.Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv.Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR\n Mr. Nawanjai Mahapatra, Adv.Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.Mr. S. Subramanian, Adv.Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv.Mr. Tejas Patel, Adv.Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv.Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.Mr. Navanjay Mahpatra, Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\n Leave granted.The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed Order.9Pending applications also stand disposed of.(VISHAL ANAND) (PREETHI T.C.)\nASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH)\n (Signed Order is placed on the file) |
158540fc-7ebc-5b78-b4ad-acbd8dde2ab4 | court_cases | Rajasthan High CourtJagannath S/O Sh, Dungarmal Khandppa vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 March, 2021Author:Ashok Kumar GaurBench:Ashok Kumar GaurHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.609/2020\n\nJagannath S/o Sh, Dungarmal Khandppa & Anr.\n ----Petitioners\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan & Ors.\n ----RespondentsFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Dutt Sharma, Adv.\nFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashodhar Pandey, Adv. for\n Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG\n Mr. Ajay Shukla, Adv. with\n Mr. Arpit Baheti, Adv.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR\n\n Order\n\n26/03/2021\n\n The matter comes up on an application filed by the\n\npetitioners for taking additional documents on record.For the reasons stated in the application, the same is\n\nallowed.Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Vijay Dutt Sharma\n\ninformed this Court that one letter dated 05.03.2021 has been\n\nissued by the Rajasthan Housing Board, asking the petitioners to\n\nappear before them on 26.03.2021 and the petitioners have been\n\nasked to show the relevant documents and further place all facts\n\nbefore the Competent Authority.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter\n\nis subjudice before this Court and the State Government has\n\nalready issued directions to the Rajasthan Housing Board to\n\nconsider the case of the petitioners for allotment of flat in Jyoti\n\nNagar and as such, there is no requirement of again appearing(Downloaded on 02/04/2021 at 08:52:26 PM)(2 of 2) [CW-609/2020]\n\n\n\n before the said Authority and this Court can always adjudicate in\n\n the present matter and see the action of the respondents as\n\n whether they are justified in not allotting the flat to the petitioners\n\n in Jyoti Nagar.Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan\n\n Housing Board submitted that the letter dated 05.03.2021 has\n\n been issued only for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the\n\n petitioners to place on record documents or facts as they intend to\n\n put before the Authority in support of their claim.Learned counsel for the Rajasthan Housing Board further\n\n submitted that the Rajasthan Housing Board has to consider the\n\n entire aspect relating to allotment of flat, including the letter\n\n which is received from the State Government.This Court finds that if the petitioners appear before the\n\n Rajasthan Housing Board in pursuance of the letter dated\n\n 05.03.2021, no prejudice may be caused to them simply because\n\n they are asked to appear before the Rajasthan Housing Board.List the matter on 19.04.2021.(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J\n\n Parul Sharma/Ramesh Vaishnav/254(Downloaded on 02/04/2021 at 08:52:26 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) |
38adee0c-239e-546c-97f5-32a48665dcb1 | court_cases | National Green TribunalSatish Kumar vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2020Author:Adarsh Kumar GoelBench:Adarsh Kumar GoelItem No. 9 Court No. 1\n\nBEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL\nPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI\n\nOriginal Application No. 56(THC)/2013\n\nSatish Kumar Applicant(s)\n\nVersus\n\nUnion of India & Ors. Respondent(s)Date of hearing: 24.07.2020\n\nMatter stands adjourned to : 02.11.2020 |
370e2726-7bae-50fc-977f-2e7e0920df1d | court_cases | State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionMrs.Anita V.Singh And Mr.Virendra ... vs M/S.Mangal Morya Developers Through ... on 29 June, 2022CC-18-1007\n\n\n\n STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,\n MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI\n\n Consumer Complaint No.CC/18/1007\n\nMrs.Anita V. Singh\nMr.Virendra B.Singh\nR/o.5/8, MSEDCL Colony\nNavaghar, Vasai (E) ...........Complainants\nVersus\nM/s.Mangal Morya Developers\nThrough its partner\n1.Mr.Avinash Vikram Dhole\nR/o.Shop no.3, Building no.23\nSec 7, Bhavya Heights\nChikhal Dongari\nVirar (West), District Palghar 401 303\n2.Mr.Pradeep H. Patil\nR/at.Ram Mandir Ali, Vartak Ward\nVirar (W), Taluka Vasai,\nDistrict Thane\nOffice at -10, Shripal Flatping Center\nNear Petrol pump, Station Road\nVirar (W) 401 303\n3.Mr.Willium Anthony Tuscano\nR/o.Daulat House, Ghosali Nandakhal\nAgashi, Virar (W), Palghar\n4.Mr.Rahul Suresh Kawli\nKawali Ali, Cross Naka, S.M.Kawli Marg\nAgashi, Virar (W), Palghar ............Opponents\n\nBEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade President\n Smt.S.T.Barne, Judicial Member\n\n 1\n CC-18-1007\nPRESENT: Ms.Bhagyashri Dhamapurkar-Advocate for complainants\n None present for opponents.\n\n ORDER\n\n (29th June, 2022)\n\nPer Hon'ble Smt.S.T.Barne, Judicial Member1. The complainants-Mrs.Anita V. Singh and Mr.Virendra B.Singhhave filed\nthis consumer complaint undersection 12of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The\ncomplainants are resident of Vasai (E). The Opponent - M/s.Mangal Morya\nDevelopers is a partnership firm having office at Virar (West). The opponents are\nthe builders and contractor of residential apartment. The opponent nos.1 to 4 are the\npartners in the firm.2. It is the case of complainants that in the year 2014, opponents gave\nadvertisement of their project namely 'Daulat Heights', situated at Survey no.35,\nHissa no.8, Survey no.36, Hissa no.6/9, Village Agashi, Agashi Road, Olanda\nNaka, close to Ancient Jain Temple, Virar (W). On going through the advertisement\nof opponents, the complainants approached them. They represented the\ncomplainants that they were constructing buildings as per plan sanctioned by\nplanning authority and they would complete the work within 36 months. Therefore,\ncomplainants booked the flat no.907, admeasuring 655 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.2800/-\nper sq.ft. for total consideration of Rs.18,34,000/-. The complainants paid\nRs.21,000/- towards booking charges and Rs.14,00,000/- towards the consideration.\nThereupon, the opponents issued allotment letter dated 31/03/2014 to the\ncomplainants. The complainants thereupon visited the opponents and insisted to\nexecute registered agreement to sale, but the opponents rejected the same.\nThereafter, on 18/06/2014, the opponents executed Memorandum of Understanding\n(M.O.U.).3. It is further contention of the complainants that they wanted to raise loan for2CC-18-1007\nthe purpose of balance consideration. Therefore, as per MOU, to execute Mortgage\nDeed, the complainants approached to opponents to provide them documents\nrelated to the project. But the opponents avoided to provide the documents. Then\nthe complainants visited the office of opponents, where the opponents have given\nproforma of sale deed to complainants. The opponents represented the complainants\nthat they would execute the document, after sometime as they have some legal\nissues and tax issues regarding registration. Complainants on believing the\nopponents did not insist for the same.4. It is further contention of the complainants that the opponnets have received\n75% of the amount of consideration of flat. The opponents have thereafter avoided\nto issue demand letter for remaining amount, and also started avoiding to receive\ncalls. The complainants visited the office of opponents and asked the possession of\nflat and registration of sale deed of flat in their favour. The opponents assured them\nthat they would give the possession as soon as possible and construct the building\nand transfer the flat as per rules ofMaharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The\ncomplainants insisted the opponents from time to time, however, the opponents\nhave no intention to complete the construction and to give possession by executing\nregistered sale deed. The opponents also avoided to give documents of title to raise\nloan.5. The opponents have adopted unfair trade practice. Complainants are ready to\npay balance amount on demand by opponents as per agreed terms. The\ncomplainants have also filed complaint under RERA. However, said complaint is\nwithdrawn. The opponents though received more than 20% of the amount, failed to\nexecute the registered agreement in violation ofMaharashtra Ownership Flats Act,\n1963.6. Due to non execution of agreement and delivery of flat on the part of\nopponents, complainants are feeling mental tension since last several years and\ncould not purchase a flat for their own use. Hence, the complainants have filed3CC-18-1007\nconsumer complaint for deficiency in service on the part of opponents. The\ncomplainants are seeking relief of possession and execution of registered sale deed.\nThey have also claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and\ncompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation charges.7. Opponent nos.1 & 2 though served with the notice but remained absent and\nhence, consumer complaint is already proceeded ex-parte against the opponents.8. Complainants in support of their contention have produced the documents\nalong with list, Exhibit-4, documents bearing no.C-4 to C-33 consisting of true\ncopies of partnership deed, brochure, MOU, bank statement, allotment letter issued\nby opponent no.1 in respect of flat in question, copy of passbook of saving account\nof complainants, RERA court order and affidavit of evidence of complainant no.1.\nThe complainants have re-agitated the contents in the complaint in affidavit filed by\ncomplainant no.1 and notes of arguments. Entire evidence adduced by the\ncomplainants by way of affidavit and documents remained unchallenged as the\nopponents failed to appear in spite of service of notice by paper publication.9. From the aforesaid documents it reveals that the complainants booked the flat\nin the project undertaken by opponent no.1 - M/s.Mangal Morya Developers for\npurchase of flat no.907 admeasuring 655 sq.ft. in 'Daulat Heights', situated at\nSurvey no.35, Hissa no.8, Survey no.36, Hissa no.6/9, Village Agashi, Agashi\nRoad, Olanda Naka, close to Ancient Jain Temple, Virar (W) for total consideration\nof Rs.18,34,000/-. Opponent no.1 has also received an amount of Rs.14,00,000/-\ntowards part consideration. Opponent no.1 accordingly issued Allotment letter with\npayment receipt which are at page nos.C-18 to C-20. As stated by complainant in\nthe affidavit of evidence, in spite of several requests, opponent no.1 failed to\ncommence the construction and to execute registered agreement and to deliver\npossession.10. In the affidavit also, complainant has stated that they approached opponents\nand opponents have also given assurance to hand over the possession of flat. Thus,4CC-18-1007\nit reveals that opponent no.1 though received major part of consideration of\nRs.14,00,000/- from the complainants and assured to sell the flat on the project\nundertaken by him, he failed to complete the construction within two years. Thus,\nthe opponents are responsible for causing deficiency in service and/or unfair trade\npractice towards complainant. Here the complainants claimed possession of flat or\nin the alternative, refund of consideration paid by him towards purchase of flat and\namount towards the mental agony and litigation charges. According to\ncomplainants, it is not possible for them to purchase another flat and due to attitude\non the part of both the opponents, they suffered from mental agony. It reveals that\nthe amount of Rs.14,00,000/- is lying with the opponents since April 2014.\nComplainants could not get the benefit in spite of investing the amount for purchase\nof flat for such a longer period till this date. Hence, in the circumstances, it will be\njust and proper to pass the following order:-ORDER1. Consumer complaint is partly allowed.2. The complainants shall deposit the balance consideration of Rs.4,34,000/- of\n\n agreement, within 30 days from receipt of this order.3. Opponent nos.1 to 4 shall execute the registered sale deed of the flat no.907\n\n admeasuring 655 sq.ft. in 'Daulat Heights', situated at Survey no.35, Hissa\n\n no.8, Survey no.36, Hissa no.6/9, Village Agashi, Agashi Road, Olanda\n\n Naka, close to Ancient Jain Temple, Virar (W), in favour of complainants\n\n within 30 days, on depositing balance consideration as agreed in the\n\n Allotment Letter, and to hand over the possession of said flat to the\n\n complainants.5CC-18-10074. Opponent nos.1 to 4 shall also pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards mental\n\n agony and Rs.20,000/- towards costs of proceeding.5. The opponent nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally shall pay the aforesaid amounts\n\n to complainant within three months from the date of receipt of this order,\n\n failing which, the complainants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 18%\n\n p.a. on the aforesaid amounts awarded, from the date of this order.6. Inform the parties accordingly.[Justice S.P.Tavade]\n President\n\n\n\n [Smt.S.T.Barne]\n Judicial Member\nMs6 |
0d07e5e1-e376-5120-b5c1-92d8757acf81 | court_cases | State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionShriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Krishnan Kutty on 2 August, 2022Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/16/163 ( Date of Filing : 09 Mar 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/11/2014 in Case No. CC/87/2010 of District Wayanad) 1. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD .. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. KRISHNAN KUTTY .. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RANJIT.R MEMBER SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 02 Aug 2022 Final Order / Judgement \n\n KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,\n\n \n\n VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM\n\n \n\n APPEAL No. 163/2016\n\n \n\n JUDGMENT DATED: 02.08.2022\n\n \n\n(Against the Order in C.C. 87/2010 of CDRF, Wayanad)\n\n \n\n PRESENT:\n\n \n\nHON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT\n\n \n\nSRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\n \n\nSRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n APPELLANT:\n\n \n\nShriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., 123, Angappa Naikan Street, Chennai represented by its Authorized Signatory Santosh P. John.\n\n \n\n(By Adv. Narayan R.)\n\n \n\n Vs.\n\n \n\n RESPONDENTS:\n\n \n Krishnankutty, 9/187, Karakunnu House, Noolpuzha, Naikaty Post, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad-673 592.\n\n\n \n\n(By Adv. Suja Madhav)\n\n \n M/s Singvi Syndicate, No. 49, Erulappan Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079.\n Chacko, Vikas Auto Consultant, Kottakunnu, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592.\n\n\n \n\n(By Adv. Bobby K. Joseph for R2 & R3)\n\n \n Prakashan, Kayyanikkal House, Manalavayal Post, Wayanad-673 579.\n Prasad, Nedumkuzhiyil House, Periya Post, Mananthavady via Wayanad-670 644.\n Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad, Kalpatta, Wayanad-673 121.\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nAdditional Respondents:\n\n \n Radha, W/o Krishnankutty, Karakunnu House, Noolpuzha, Naikaty Post, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad-673 592.\n Dineshan, S/o Krishnankutty, Karakunnu House, Noolpuzha, Naikaty Post, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad-673 592.\n Baby, W/o late Dineshan, Karakunnu House, Noolpuzha, Naikaty Post, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad-673 592.\n Amarjith, Karakunnu House, Noolpuzha, Naikaty Post, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad-673 592.\n Ajilamol, Karakunnu House, Noolpuzha, Naikaty Post, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad-673 592.\n Diljith, Karakunnu House, Noolpuzha, Naikaty Post, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad-673 592.\n Sheeba, Karakunnu House, Noolpuzha, Naikaty Post, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad-673 592.\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n JUDGMENTSRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\n \n\nThe 3rd opposite party in C.C. No. 87/2010 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad (in short, the District Forum) has filed this appeal against the order passed by the District Forum on 06.01.2016 by which the opposite parties 3, 4 & 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 3,10,000/- (Rs. 2,02,000 + Rs. 1,08,000/-) which was spent by the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum from 09.07.2009 till payment and they are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and previous litigation expenses and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The 6th opposite party is directed to write off the booked tax for the period from 01.01.2010 till the date of putting the vehicle on road with proper records.2. The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows:The complainant purchased a truck having No. KL 08 T 3822 from the 4th opposite party on assurance that the truck was free from any liability and an agreement was executed to that effect. At the time of executing the agreement Rs. 2,02,000/- was given as advance to the 4th opposite party out of the total amount fixed Rs. 5,02,000/- as sale price. For the remaining amount the complainant had taken a loan from the 1st opposite party of Rs. 3,00,000/- and adjusted towards the sale consideration and which was agreed to be repaid in 24 monthly instalments of Rs. 18,000/- each to the 1st opposite party. The repayment chart was also given to the complainant. The liable sum in total was Rs. 4,22,200/- including interest. The opposite parties 1 & 2 received from the complainant two signed blank stamp papers and two blank cheque leaves signed by the complainant drawn on of the South Malabar Gramin Bank, Kalloor Branch, bearing No. 344711 and 344712. The complainant was informed that the vehicle was free from any liability. When the agreement was executed the 4th opposite party who was the RC owner and the complainant and witnesses also signed the agreement. The vehicle was used by the complainant for his self-employment to meet his livelihood. Later the vehicle was seized by SHO Thalassery in connection with the Crime No. 273/09 of SHO Thalassery police station on 28.11.2009. The allegation that led to the registering of the crime was that the 3rd opposite party had filed a CMP before the JFCM Thalassery stating that the said vehicle was earlier under the ownership of one Prasad (opposite party No. 5) and he had availed a loan of Rs. 3,25,000/- from 3rd opposite party executing a hypothecation agreement but had not repaid the loan amount. So the complainant filed a petition underSec. 451of Cr.P.C. as C.M.P. 3506/09 before the Addl. CJM Court, Thalassery on 30.11.2009 for the interim custody of the vehicle. On the same day the 3rd opposite party also filed another C.M.P. as 3505/09 for the release of said vehicle to him. Then the 1st and 2nd opposite parties approached the complainant and stated that more possibility of getting release of vehicle was to the 1st opposite party since he was the present hirer of the vehicle and promised that 1st opposite party would get release of the vehicle from the court and hand over the same to the complainant unconditionally. Believing the assurance of 1st and 2nd opposite parties and the legal advice he received, the complainant handed over the original R.C. of his vehicle and other documents to the 1st opposite party and withdrew his C.M.P. as promised. The 1st opposite party filed a C.M.P. as 3591/09 before the Addl. CJM Court, Thalassery to release the said vehicle claiming that he was the right person to get the release of the said vehicle being the hirer but the court dismissed the petition and released the vehicle to 3rd opposite party finding that 3rd opposite party was the earlier financier. So, the complainant again filed a petition before the same court as C.M.P. 178/10 for the release of the said vehicle. But the same was also dismissed stating as 'not maintainable'. The revision petition filed by the complainant against the said order was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court finding that revision petition was not maintainable against an interim order. The complainant had no knowledge that the vehicle was hypothecated to somebody else by anyone. The opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 had not disclosed any of the liabilities of the vehicle to the complainant and the complainant was thrown into pain and hardships. The 2nd opposite party who is an agent of the 1st opposite party made the complainant to believe that the vehicle was free from all other liabilities. The hire purchase agreement was executed between the complainant and the 1st opposite party only. The complainant had paid Rs. 2,02,000/- to the 4th opposite party as the margin money and six equated monthly instalments amounting to Rs. 1,08,000/- were paid to the 1st opposite party also. The complainant had to spend huge amount towards the expense in respect of the above said adjudication. The complainant further stated that the claim of 3rd opposite party that the said vehicle was hypothecated with 3rd opposite party is false. The 3rd opposite party has caused to seize the vehicle fraudulently with the connivance of 5th opposite party. Hence opposite parties 1 to 5 are also equally liable to compensate the complainant for all his losses. The complainant came to know that claim of 3rd opposite party that said vehicle was hypothecated with them is false only in the later stage. In the meanwhile, the 6th opposite party has sent a notice to the complainant demanding payment of the arrears of vehicle tax for the period from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2011 for which complainant had sent a reply intimating the fact that the vehicle was seized by the police as per the order of the Addl. CJM Thalassery on 28.11.2009 and stated he was not liable to pay the vehicle tax thereafter. Despite the said reply 6th opposite party has again sent memos on 21.12.2011 and on 10.01.2012 intimating that Revenue Recovery proceedings would be initiated against the complainant to recover the vehicle tax arrears. The complainant is not liable to pay tax arrears if any since the vehicle is seized by the Police as per the order of Addl. CJM, Thalassery on 28.11.2009 and thereafter the vehicle is under the custody of the 3rd opposite party. In the above circumstances, one among opposite parties 1 to 5 is liable to pay vehicle tax of the said vehicle, whoever is the actual culprit. Hence the complainant prayed before the Forum that there may be an order directing the 1st opposite party to cancel the hypothecation agreement with complainant in respect of truck No. KL 08 T 3822 and intimate the same to the RTO, Wayanad and direct the opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay the complainant Rs. 2,02,000/- with interest @ 18% from 07.05.2009 till realization and also direct the opposite parties 1 to 5 to refund Rs. 1,08,000/- with 18% interest from the date of payment and direct the 2nd opposite party to give back the complainant Rs. 25,000/- received as commission and service charges that is to be given with an interest of 18% from 07.05.2009 and also direct the opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the complainant for the expenses incurred for conducting case in the court of the Addl. CJM, Thalassery and Hon'ble High Court and also direct the opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain and to grant costs of the petition and to direct the 6th opposite party to cancel the R.C. of KL 08 T 3822, which is in the name of complainant with effect from 09.07.2009 and to declare that complainant is not liable to pay vehicle tax demanded by 6th opposite party since the vehicle is seized by the 3rd opposite party by the order of Addl. CJM Thalassery and to direct opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay the vehicle tax if any payable to 6th opposite party if it is payable.3. The 1st opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle No. KL-08 T 3822 of 2001 make Leyland lorry was financed by the 1st opposite party. The complainant executed a hypothecation agreement in favour of the 1st opposite party and it was entered in the R.C. Book. The possession of the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. The loan was issued after verification of documents. The 1st opposite party has not received any cheque or signed blank papers from the complainant. The 3rd opposite party filed a complaint before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery and the vehicle was seized. Later the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery released the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party. According to the 3rd opposite party the 5th opposite party who was the prior owner of the vehicle had availed loan from them after executing hypothecation agreement. The 1st opposite party had granted loan to the complainant after verifying the records and the 1st opposite party was not aware of any other liabilities on the vehicle. The 1st opposite party is not responsible for the loan and damages if any occurred to the complainant. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.4. The 2nd opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The 2nd opposite party has not approached the complainant in connection with the purchase or sale of the vehicle. The hire purchase deal was between the complainant and the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party has no role. The seizure of the vehicle by SHO, Thalassery is not within the knowledge of the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has not received any amount from the complainant. The 2nd opposite party acted as a mediator in the sale of the vehicle purchased by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the 2nd opposite party.5. The 3rd opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The 3rd opposite party has no privity of contract with the complainant. The 3rd opposite party is the actual financier and the vehicle was released to the 3rd opposite party by the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery. The complainant has no title or ownership or possession of the vehicle at any point of time. The complainant approached the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery and petition filed by him for releasing the vehicle was later withdrawn. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the 3rd opposite party.6. The 4th opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the 1st opposite party after executing a hypothecation bond. The vehicle was in possession of the 4th opposite party and it was sold to the complainant for Rs. 5,02,000/-. The amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was adjusted towards the sale price and the complainant has paid Rs. 2,02,000/- to the 4th opposite party. The Registration Certificate was transferred in the name of the complainant by the 4th opposite party. The 4th opposite party later came to know that the 3rd opposite party had financed Rs. 3,25,000/- to one Prasad, who was the then R.C owner of the vehicle. But the registration certificate does not contain any endorsement of the financial liability with the 3rd opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the 4th opposite party.7. The opposite parties 5 & 6 were ex-parte.8. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A16 were marked. OPW1 & OPW2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B9 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.9. In the order of the District Forum it is stated that the complaint was disposed of by the district Forum by order dated 20.10.2010 and the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 filed appeal against that order before this Commission and this Commission set aside the order and remanded the matter to consider the question of maintainability and consider the complaint on merits after impleading Prasad, mentioned by the opposite parties, if the parties so desired. The order passed by the District Forum on 20.10.2010 and the order passed by this Commission in the appeal filed by opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 against that order are not seen incorporated in the records sent by the District Forum. After the remand complainant filed application to implead additional opposite parties and the said application was allowed. Additional opposite parties 5 and 6 were impleaded, but they were ex-parte. Thereafter the matter was heard and the District Forum passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum the 3rd opposite party has filed the present appeal.10. Respondents 1, 2 & 3 appeared through counsel and respondents 4, 5 & 6 remained ex-parte. Subsequently 1st respondent died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 7 & 8. Thereafter additional 8th respondent died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 9 to 13. The additional 10th respondent appeared in person and he produced the authorization letter of additional respondents 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13 authorizing him to appear before this Commission on their behalf and submit matters.11. Heard both sides. Perused the records.12. The parties are referred according to their status/rank in the complaint.13. It is stated by the appellant that the District Forum ought to have found that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum. On a perusal of the order of the District Forum it can be seen that the District Forum has considered the question of maintainability of the complaint as point No. 1 and found that the complaint was maintainable. In paragraph 15 of the order of the District Forum it is stated that the opposite party No. 1 filed I.A. 74/2014 challenging the maintainability of the complaint and after detailed hearing the I.A. was dismissed holding that the complaint was maintainable before the District Forum. Against that order the opposite parties filed an appeal before this Commission as A 408/2014 and the appeal was dismissed stating that the case was maintainable before the Forum. This Commission held that "on going through the order of the lower Forum we feel that the complaint is maintainable before the Forum. The 1st opposite party is the financier and service provider to the complainant. Therefore, complainant has to be treated as a consumer as defined under theConsumer Protection Act. Therefore, we find no ground to admit the appeal and dismiss the same". The opposite parties have not challenged the said order of this Commission before any higher forum. So, it has become final. Considering all these facts the District Forum found that the complaint was maintainable before the Forum. There is no reason/ground to interfere with the said finding of the District Forum.14. The complainant purchased a truck having No. KL-08 T 3822 from the 4th opposite party and an agreement was executed to that effect. The sale price was fixed as Rs. 5,02,000/- and the complainant had paid Rs. 2,02,000/- towards the sale consideration to the 4th opposite party. For the remaining amount complainant availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the 1st opposite party by executing a hypothecation agreement and adjusted towards the sale consideration and the complainant agreed to repay the amount to the 1st opposite party in 24 monthly instalments of Rs. 18,000/- each. Thereafter the vehicle was transferred to the complainant by the 4th opposite party on 09.07.2009 from the R.T.O. Wayanad after retaining the H.P. endorsement of 1st opposite party in the Registration Certificate. Complainant had taken possession of the vehicle and the complainant had been making instalment payments to 1st opposite party regularly. While so, the said vehicle was seized by SHO, Thalassery in Crime No. 273/09 of that police station. On the basis of the complaint filed by the opposite party before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery, the vehicle was produced before that court. The complaint was filed by 3rd opposite party stating that 5th opposite party who was the prior owner of the truck had availed an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- from them executing a hypothecation agreement. But the 5th opposite party failed to pay the amounts and he had transferred the vehicle in the name of the 4th opposite party and thereby cheated them. The complainant filed petition before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery to give interim custody of the vehicle. Later it was withdrawn by him. The 3rd opposite party and the 5th opposite party also filed petitions for interim custody of the vehicle. Thereafter the 1st opposite party has also filed petition for interim custody of the vehicle. The Additional CJM Court, Thalassery released the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party on executing bond by him with sureties. Thereafter the complainant again filed petition before the Additional CJM Court for release of the vehicle which was dismissed as not maintainable. The revision petition filed by the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed finding that the revision petition was not maintainable against the interim order. Thereafter the complainant has filed the present complaint. There is not much dispute between the parties to these facts.15. It is the case of the complainant that he happened to withdraw the petition filed by him before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery since opposite parties 1 & 2 approached him and stated that there was more possibility for getting release of the vehicle in favour of the 1st opposite party. Since they were the hirer of the vehicle, they promised that on getting release of the vehicle it will be handed over to the complainant unconditionally. It is stated by the complainant that relying on the assurance given by the opposite parties 1 & 2 he handed over the R.C. Book and other documents of the vehicle to the 1st opposite party and he had withdrawn the petition filed by him. Since the petition filed by the 1st opposite party was dismissed by the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery, he again filed petition before that court which was dismissed as not maintainable. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 5 the complainant had filed the complaint. He had sought for direction to 6th opposite party, R.T.O. Wayanad to write off the booked tax for the period from 01.01.2010 till the date of putting the vehicle on road with proper records and it was allowed by the Forum. The 6th opposite party was ex-parte before the District Forum and he has not filed any appeal against the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 3, 4 & 5 and they were directed to pay the amounts as stated above. The 5th opposite party was ex-parte before the District Forum. The opposite parties 4 & 5 have not filed any appeal against the order passed by the District Forum. So, the order passed by the District Forum as against opposite parties 4 & 5 regarding the payment of the amounts to the complainant has become final. The 3rd opposite party has filed the present appeal against the order passed by the District Forum. So, we need only to consider whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party as found by the District Forum and whether he is liable to pay the amounts to the complainant as directed by the District Forum.16. The allegation of the complainant is that the claim of the 3rd opposite party that the vehicle was hypothecated to the 5th opposite party was false and the 3rd opposite party has caused to seize the vehicle fraudulently with connivance of the 5th opposite party. Admittedly the interim custody of the vehicle was given to the 3rd opposite party by the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery. So, it can be seen that the 3rd opposite party obtained custody of the vehicle as per the order of the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery. If the complainant was aggrieved by the order of the Additional CJM, Thalassery, he would have challenged that order properly before the appellate authority by appropriate proceedings. But he has not done so. Instead of that complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum as per the provisions of theConsumer Protection Act. Further, on a perusal of Ext. B1 order passed by the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery, it can be seen that the interim custody of the vehicle was given to the 3rd opposite party, because of the mistake/fault of the complainant, that he has filed petition for getting custody of the vehicle, but had later withdrawn the same. From Ext. A4, copy of the FIR in Crime No. 273/2009 of Thalassery Police Station, it can be seen that the 3rd opposite party had filed complaint before the Addition CJM Court, Thalassery stating that the 5th opposite party had availed a loan of Rs. 3,25,000/- from them, executing a hypothecation agreement with respect to the vehicle No. KL-08 T 3822 and he failed to remit the amount as agreed. By mistake the said hypothecation was not entered in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. Taking advantage of that, the 5th opposite party transferred the vehicle to the 4th opposite party and thereby cheated them. The 1st accused in the crime is the 5th opposite party, the 2nd accused in the crime is the 4th opposite party herein and the 3rd accused is the manager of the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party filed petition before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery for getting interim custody of the vehicle stating the same facts mentioned in the complaint filed by him. They had produced the hypothecation agreement executed by the 5th opposite party in their favour. The said hypothecation agreement dated 14.09.2007 was produced before the District Forum also by the 3rd opposite party which was marked as Ext. B9. The 5th opposite party filed petition before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery for getting custody of the vehicle in which he admitted the execution of the hypothecation agreement with the 3rd opposite party. It is stated by him that due to financial difficulties he had transferred the vehicle to one Ummar after executing an agreement and in the agreement the said Ummar had agreed to pay the amounts due to the 3rd opposite party. He had produced the copy of the said agreement before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery. The 1st opposite party had also filed petition for interim custody of the vehicle before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery, stating that they had advanced amounts to the complainant who was the registered owner of the vehicle and the complainant had executed an agreement of hypothecation of the vehicle in their favour. The fact of the hypothecation of the vehicle was entered in the R.C. Book of the vehicle. In the order of the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery, it is stated that the 5th opposite party produced the R.C. Book of the vehicle. The Additional CJM Court, Thalassery found that since the 5th opposite party was the 1st accused in the crime, the person who committed default in payment of the amount to the 3rd opposite party and transferred the vehicle without the consent of the financier, the interim custody of the vehicle could not be given to him. It is stated by the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery that the 1st opposite party had produced an R.C. Book of the vehicle in the name of one Krishnankutty (complainant herein) and the fact of hypothecation of the vehicle in their favour was entered in the said R.C. Book of the vehicle. The Additional CJM Court, Thalassery noted that a new Certificate of Registration was produced by the 1st opposite party bearing the signature and seal of the R.T.O., Wayanad which was issued on 12.08.2009. It does not contain the endorsement as 'duplicate'. The R.C. Book of the vehicle produced by the 5th opposite party is genuine. The Additional CJM Court, Thalassery found that in those circumstances it cannot be said whether the Certificate of Registration in the name of Krishnankutty (complainant herein) produced by the 1st opposite party was a forged one or not and so the interim custody of the vehicle could not be given to him. The remaining petitioner was the 3rd opposite party, who had advanced the amounts to the 1st opposite party on the basis of the hypothecation agreement. The 5th opposite party admitted the execution of the hypothecation agreement with the 3rd opposite party and he had also admitted that he had transferred the vehicle without informing the financier. The said agreement was also produced by him. In Ext. B1 order the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery stated that "the settled position is that the vehicle should be given to the person who could best use of the same, but here the petitioners in all the CMP's cannot be considered so, since two of them were financiers and the other one is the accused in the case who had already transferred the possession to others. Then the person who is able to use the vehicle is the person from whom it was seized, but he is not now before the court and withdrawn his application. So, in these circumstances the interim custody can only be given to the first financier who had advanced a huge amount to the first accused as a loan hypothecating the vehicle which was now in due. Otherwise, the vehicle will be damaged when it is kept idle in the custody of the court". Hence the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery ordered release of the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party on their executing a bond for Rs. 3,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. It was also directed by the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery that the petitioner (3rd opposite party) shall produce the vehicle in the same condition as and when required by the court. From Ext. B1 order we can see the circumstances under which the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery happened to release the vehicle to the interim custody of the 3rd opposite party. The Additional CJM Court, Thalassery has passed the order under Sec. 451 Cr. PC regarding the release of the vehicle to the interim custody of the 3rd opposite party. The Additional CJM Court, Thalassery has not considered the question of ownership of the vehicle which he was not expected to do at that stage. The final decision regarding the custody of the vehicle has to be taken at the time of disposal of the case pending before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery which can be challenged by the complainant before appropriate authority. The complainant has no case that the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery had taken a final decision in the matter.17. The District Forum found that since there was no endorsement in the R.C. Book of the vehicle, the 3rd opposite party had no right to obtain possession of the vehicle and even if there was a hypothecation agreement between them and the 5th opposite party the only remedy available to the 3rd opposite party was to approach the civil court for remedy. At the time of registration of the F.I.R at Police Station, Thalassery and at the time of CMPs before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery the real owner and lawful possessor of the vehicle was the complainant and the 1st opposite party is the real financier of the vehicle. So, the 3rd opposite party had no right or authority to seize or possess the vehicle which was in the lawful possession of the complainant. The release of the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party and the custody of the vehicle by the 3rd opposite party till now was found to be illegal and without any lawful right. As submitted by the counsel for the appellant the said finding of the District Forum amounts to virtually setting aside the order of the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery. The District Forum has no power to do so. The District Forum ought to have considered/borne in mind that they were not sitting in appeal or exercising revisional jurisdiction over the order passed by the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery by which the vehicle was given to the interim custody of the 3rd opposite party. So the above said findings of the District Forum are not sustainable.18. The specific case of the 3rd opposite party is that there was no privity of contract between them and complainant. It can be seen that the 3rd opposite party was not a party to the transactions of the complainant with opposite parties 1, 2 & 4. There is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party. In paragraph 22 of the order of the District Forum it is found by the District Forum that the complainant has a consumer relationship with opposite party No. 4 only. But it is stated by the District Forum that even if there is no direct consumer relationship with complainant and opposite party No. 3 & 5, the entire hardships caused to the complainant was due to the fraudulent and illegal acts of the opposite party No. 3 & 5 and they have indirect consumer relationship with the complainant. It is also stated by the District Forum that the 3rd opposite party had appeared before the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery, misrepresented the real facts and had taken possession of the vehicle and it was a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Considering the evidence, facts and circumstances it can be seen that the said findings of the District Forum are without any basis. As stated above, it can be seen that the 3rd opposite party obtained possession of the vehicle by lawful means, on the basis of the order passed by the Additional CJM Court, Thalassery and the complainant has not taken any proper action before the appropriate authorities for challenging that order and for getting custody of the vehicle. In paragraph 21 of the order of the District Forum it is stated that it may be true that the opposite party No. 3 has given a loan to opposite party No. 5 on 14.09.2007. But the HP was not entered into the R.C. and at that time opposite party No. 5 was not the R.C. owner of the vehicle. The District Forum found that it was a fraudulent act committed by opposite party No. 5 against opposite party No. 3, who in turn granted loan without verifying the records. Since the vehicle was taken from the custody of the complainant it would have caused hardship to him. But the finding of the District Forum that the hardship caused to the complainant was due to the fraudulent and illegal act of opposite parties 3 & 5 is without any basis and there is no evidence for that. Further the District Forum has not stated the reasons/grounds to arrive at such a finding that the hardship caused to the complainant was due to the fraudulent and illegal act of opposite parties 3 & 5. The complainant has to establish his ownership over the vehicle, his right to get possession of the vehicle and his allegation of fraud committed by the opposite parties 3 & 5 in a properly instituted civil suit. From the evidence it can be seen that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party. There is no evidence to find that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 3rd opposite party towards the complainant. In the light of the above discussion, we find that the findings of the District Forum that the 3rd opposite party has indirect consumer relationship with the complainant and that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 3rd opposite party towards the complainant are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. So the order passed by the District Forum directing the 3rd opposite party also to pay the amounts to the complainant is also liable to be set aside. We do so.In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum as against the appellant/3rd opposite party, directing him also to pay the amounts to the complainant is set aside. It is made clear that the order passed by the District Forum against the respondents 4 & 5/opposite parties 4 & 5 regarding the payment of amounts to the complainant will stand unaltered and confirmed.However, it is made clear that this order will not cause any prejudice/affect the right of the appellant/complainant to file civil suit or to take appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority to declare his ownership over the vehicle, to get custody of the vehicle etc.\n\n \n\nParties are directed to suffer their respective costs.Refund the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the statutory deposit made by the appellant, to them, on proper acknowledgement.JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n RANJIT. R : MEMBER\n\n \n\njb [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN] PRESIDENT \n [HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH] JUDICIAL MEMBER \n [ SRI.RANJIT.R] MEMBER \n [ SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A] MEMBER \n [ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R] MEMBER |
f3e151f1-8227-5c74-ad71-be70f52b5ab1 | court_cases | Delhi High CourtFederation Of Ayush Drugs ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 November, 2022Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n Date of decision: 16th NOVEMBER, 2022\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n + W.P.(C) 13957/2018 & CM APPL. 2281/2022\n FEDERATION OF AYUSH DRUGS MANUFACTURERS & ORS.\n ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma and Mr. Ashok\n Kumar, Advs.\n versus\n UNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n ..... Respondent\n Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with\n Mr. Danish Faraz Khan, Advocate for\n R-1,3 and 4.\n Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, SC,\n GNCTD with Mr. Arun Panwar, Mr.\n Pradeep and Ms. Mahak Rankawat,\n Advs.\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD\n JUDGMENTSUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.1. The instant Writ Petition underArticle 226of the Constitution of\n India has been filed with the following prayers:"(a) Direct the Government of Delhi to frame a policy\n underSection 11of Micro, Small andMedium\n Enterprises Development Act, 2006 granting fiscal\n incentives to micro and small enterprises in tenders for\n public procurement of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani\n (ASU) Drugs; And\n\n\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 1 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927(b) Until the framing of such policy, direct the\n Government of Delhi to strictly follow the Policy dated\n 23.03.2012 framed by the Ministry of Micro, Small and\n Medium Enterprises and other directions dated\n 10.03.2016, 25.07.2016 and 06.12.2017 issued\n pursuant thereto in its public procurement tenders for\n supply of ASU Drugs; and(c) Direct the Government of India to direct all State\n Governments that have not framed policies in terms of\n Section 11 of MSMED Act, 2006 do so expeditiously;\n and(d) Declare that in the absence of a specific policy\n authorizing the same, it is illegal in a public\n procurement tender for supply of ASU drugs to impose\n a purchase preference in favour of Government bodies,\n enterprises and PSUs; and(e) Restrain the Ministry of Ayush, Government of\n India from imposing a mandatory requirement of\n procuring ASU drugs from government enterprises /\n PSUs as a condition for releasing grants-in-aid under\n the National Ayush Mission to the State Governments;\n And(f) Declare that in public procurement tenders for\n supply of ASU drugs within India, it is illegal to impose\n a mandatory requirement of producing WHO-GMP or\n AYUSH Premium or any other non-statutory quality\n certification apart from the statutory quality\n certification (GMP) issued under Rule 155B read with\n Schedule T of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945;and(g) Quash Tender No. 2018_DAYUS_ 158870_1 dated\n 20.09.2018 issued by Directorate of AYUSH,\n Government of NCT of Delhi and direct fresh\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 2 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n tendering in compliance with prayers (a) to (f) above;\n AND(h) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may\n deem fit and proper in light of the facts and\n circumstances of the case."2. It is stated that the Petitioner is a federation of private individuals\n engaged in manufacture of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani (hereinafter\n referred to as 'the ASU') drugs. It is stated that the members of the Petitioner\n Federation fall under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (hereinafter\n referred to as 'MSME') as enumerated in the Micro, Small andMedium\n Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED\n Act'), and have valid manufacturing licenses and Good Manufacturing\n Practices (GMP) certificates. It is stated that being micro and small\n enterprises, the members of the Petitioner Federation have domestic\n presence and they provide health care in far flung and remote areas of the\n country. It is further stated that apart from catering to needs of the people\n from remote parts of the country, the members of the Petitioner Federation\n rely on public tenders floated by the respective Governments and/or PSUs\n for their survival.3. MSMED Act was enacted with the objective of facilitating the\n promotion and development of the MSMEs. It is stated that in terms of\n Section 11 of the MSMED Act, the Union of India, vide Order dated\n 23.03.2012, framed a Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small\n Enterprises Order, 2012, for procurement of goods and services by the\n Central Departments/Ministries and PSUs from Micro and Small Scale\n Enterprises. It is stated that the policy provides that every Central Ministry\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 3 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n or Department or Public Sector Undertaking shall procure a minimum of 20\n percent of total annual purchases from Micro and Small Enterprises.4. It is stated that Para 10 of the Policy categorically provides that Micro\n and Small Enterprises shall be provided with tenders free of cost, and be\n exempted from payment of earnest money. Moreover, by directions dated\n 10.03.2016 issued in terms of Para 16 of the policy, the Ministry of Micro,\n Small and Medium Enterprises issued a Policy Circular relaxing the norms\n for Start-ups and Micro and Small Enterprises in public procurement with\n regard to Prior Experience and turnover criteria, subject to meeting of\n quality and technical specifications.5. It is stated that on 20.09.2018, the Directorate of Ayush, GNCTD,\n New Delhi, floated a tender for procurement of Ayurvedic and Unani\n Medicines. It is stated that in terms of the said tender, for a bidder to be\n eligible for the tender, the bidder should have an annual turnover of\n Rs.15,00,00,000/- and a prior experience of three years for each product\n quoted in the tender. It is further stated that the bidders have to deposit\n Rs.66,00,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit to participate in the tender. Being\n aggrieved by requirement of high minimum turnover, requirement of prior\n experience and expertise, requirement of producing non-statutory quality\n certifications such as WHO-GMP or Ayush Premium certification in\n procurement of ASU drugs by the State Government, the Petitioners have\n filed the instant Writ Petition.6. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Micro and\n Small enterprises engaged in manufacture of ASU drugs serve an important\n role in providing health care in far flung and remote areas of the country.\n However, they depend on public procurement by the Central and State\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 4 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n Governments for their economic viability, and without encouragement and\n incentives for their participation in public procurement tenders, the viability\n and existence of the MSMEs is under threat. He states that the MSMED Act\n was enacted with the objective of facilitating the promotion and\n development of the MSMEs, however, due to improper implementation of\n the MSMED Act and absence of policies at the State level and due to\n preference policy in matters of procurement, the purposes with which the\n MSMED Act was promulgated is not being served.7. The learned Counsel submits that in public procurement of ASU\n drugs by State Governments and Central Government, the contracts are\n designed to favour big pharmaceutical firms by the imposition of\n unreasonable qualifying conditions and non-grant of concessions as declared\n to be conferred on MSMEs. He states that Section 11 of the MSMED Act\n requires the Government to frame preferential policies for MSMEs in\n respect of procurement of goods and services for its Ministries, Departments\n and PSUs. He states that the Central Government has framed a policy titled\n as 'Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs)\n Order, 2012' dated 23.03.2012 which provides that every Central Ministry\n or Department or Public Sector Undertaking shall procure a minimum of 20\n percent of total annual purchases from Micro and Small Enterprises. It is\n stated that Para 10 of the Policy categorically provides that Micro and Small\n Enterprises shall be provided with tenders free of cost, and be exempted\n from payment of earnest money.8. The learned Counsel states that by directions dated 10.03.2016 issued\n in terms of Para 16 of the policy, the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium\n Enterprises issued a Policy Circular relaxing the norms for Start-ups and\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 5 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n Micro and Small Enterprises in public procurement with regard to Prior\n Experience and turnover criteria, subject to meeting of quality and technical\n specifications. He states that these concessions have been re-affirmed by the\n Central Government in Office Memorandum dated 25.07.2016 and letters\n dated 06.12.2017. He states that despite clear directions from the Central\n Government and despite the mandate of MSMED Act, Government of Delhi\n has not framed a policy under Section 11 of the MSMED Act for exempting\n the MSMEs from the requirement of a minimum turn-over and has,\n therefore, violated the mandate of the Act.9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Union of India has contended that\n Section 11 of the MSMED act cannot be said to be mandatory. He submits\n that the Central Government has been sensitive to the needs of the MSMEs\n and has been notifying preferential policies in respect of procurement of\n goods and services produced and provided by the MSMEs. It is states that as\n far as tenders regarding ASU drugs are concerned, at this juncture, the\n Government has not framed any policies for exempting the MSMEs from\n the requirement of a minimum turn-over. However, the Ministry of Ayush is\n issuing uniform policies to avoid purchase of substandard drugs. He states\n that procurement guidelines under the National AYUSH Mission also make\n provision of purchase from PSUs, Pharmacies under State Governments and\n cooperatives manufacture in their own manufacturing units having the\n mandatory compliance.10. A detailed affidavit has been filed by the GNCTD. Relevant portion\n of the same reads as under:"2. The present affidavit is being filed in order to place\n on record before this Hon'ble Court, the policies that\n are in place by the answering Respondent in terms of\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 6 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n prayer (a) of the Petition, which are in the following\n terms:2.1. In the open tenders floated by answering\n Respondent for procurement of Ayurveda and Unani\n medicines, following benefits are being given to\n MSMEs;a. Availability of tender documents - free of cost;\n b. Exemption from the requirement to deposit\n Earnest Money;c. Exemption from the required turnover criteria.2.2. The said exemptions are made available to\n micro and small enterprises upon submission of a valid\n "Single Point Registration Certificate" (SPRC) from\n National Small Scale Industries Corporation (NSIC).\n Here it is pertinent to mention that NSIC issues\n enlistment Certificates to Micro and small\n manufacturers of ASU&H (Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani &\n Homoeopathy) medicines after assessing the\n manufacturing capacity only by the NSIC empaneled\n third party inspecting agency.2.3. With respect to tenders other than procurement\n of AYUSH medicines, like, tenders for outsourced\n manpower etc. that are available on Government e-\n Marketplace (GeM) portal, an initiative of the Central\n Government, the same are being floated by the\n Directorate of AYUSH on GeM Portal.2.4 GeM has an in-built option to provide\n relaxations to MSMEs, which are in terms of the\n policies followed by the Central Government as per\n Section 11 of the MSME Act.2.5 As a matter of Directorate's policy, the said\n option is always opted-in so that the relaxations to\n MSMEs could be provided in case of other said\n tenders."Signature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 7 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/00492711. Heard the Counsel for the parties, and perused the material on record.12. It is well settled that High Courts, exercising its jurisdiction underArticle 226of the Constitution of India, do not pass writs of mandamus\n directing the State to adopt a particular policy. Policy making is purely in\n the realm of Government and Courts do not pass directions in the matters of\n framing of policy.13. The Apex Court inSmall Scale Industrial Manufactures Assn. v.\n Union of India, (2021) 8 SCC 511, has observed as under:"60. In catena of decisions and time and again this\n Court has considered the limited scope of judicial\n review in economic policy matters. From various\n decisions of this Court, this Court has consistently\n observed and held as under:60.1. The Court will not debate academic matters or\n concern itself with intricacies of trade and commerce.60.2. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor\n the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry\n as to whether a particular public policy is wise or\n whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are\n the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest\n of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a\n different policy would have been fairer or wiser or\n more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and\n advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not\n amenable to judicial review.60.3. Economic and fiscal regulatory measures are a\n field where Judges should encroach upon very warily\n as Judges are not experts in these matters.61.In R.K. Garg [R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981)\n 4 SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30] , it has been observed\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 8 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n and held that laws relating to economic activities\n should be viewed with greater latitude than laws\n touching civil rights such as freedom of speech,\n religion, etc. It is further observed that the legislature\n should be allowed some play in the joints, because it\n has to deal with complex problems which do not admit\n of solution through any doctrinaire or straitjacket\n formula and this is particularly true in case of\n legislation dealing with economic matters.62.In Arun Kumar Agrawal [Arun Kumar Agrawal v.\n Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 1] , this Court (at SCC p.\n 18, para 43) had an occasion to consider the following\n observations made by the Supreme Court of the United\n States in Metropolis Theater Co. v. Chicago\n [Metropolis Theater Co. v. Chicago, 1913 SCC OnLine\n US SC 123 : 57 L Ed 730 : 228 US 61 (1913)] :"43. ... „... The problems of Government are\n practical ones and may justify, if they do not\n require, rough accommodation, illogical, if may\n be, and unscientific. But even such criticism\n should not be hastily expressed. What is the best\n is not always discernible; the wisdom of any\n choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere\n errors of Government are not subject to our\n judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary\n exercises which can be declared void....‟\n (Metropolis Theater Co. case [Metropolis Theater\n Co. v. Chicago, 1913 SCC OnLine US SC 123 :\n 57 L Ed 730 : 228 US 61 (1913)] , L Ed p. 734)"63. This Court inNandlal Jaiswal [State of M.P. v.\n Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566] has observed that\n the Government, as laid down in Permian Basin Area\n Rate Cases, In re [Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, In\n re, 1968 SCC OnLine US SC 87 : 20 L Ed 2d 312 : 390\n US 747 (1968)] , is entitled to make pragmatic\n adjustments which may be called for by particular\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 9 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n circumstances. The court cannot strike down a policy\n decision taken by the State Government merely\n because it feels that another policy decision would\n have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical.\n The court can interfere only if the policy decision is\n patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.64.In Balco Employees' Union [Balco Employees'\n Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333] , this\n Court has observed that wisdom and advisability of\n economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to\n judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the\n policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the\n Constitution. In other words, it is not for the courts to\n consider relative merits of different economic policies\n and consider whether a wiser or better one can be\n evolved. It is further observed that in the case of a\n policy decision on economic matters, the courts should\n be very circumspect in conducting an enquiry or\n investigation and must be more reluctant to impugn the\n judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a\n conclusion unless the court is satisfied that there is\n illegality in the decision itself.65. In Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.\n [Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v.\n RBI, (1992) 2 SCC 343] , it is observed and held by\n this Court that the function of the court is to see that\n lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to\n itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is further\n observed that a public body invested with statutory\n powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its\n power. It must keep within the limits of the authority\n committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must act\n reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with economic\n policy which is the function of experts. It is not the\n function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of\n economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the\n expert bodies. In such matters even experts can\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 10 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be\n expected to decide them without even the aid of\n experts. It is further observed that it is not the function\n of the court to amend and lay down some other\n directions. The function of the court is not to advise in\n matters relating to financial and economic policies for\n which bodies like RBI are fully competent. The court\n can only strike down some or entire directions issued\n by RBI in case the court is satisfied that the directions\n were wholly unreasonable or violative of any\n provisions of the Constitution or any statute. It would\n be hazardous and risky for the courts to tread an\n unknown path and should leave such task to the expert\n bodies. This Court has repeatedly said that matters of\n economic policy ought to be left to the Government.66.In Narmada Bachao Andolan [Narmada Bachao\n Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664] , in\n paras 229 and 233, it is observed and held as under :\n (SCC pp. 762-63)\n\n "229. It is now well settled that the courts, in the\n exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress\n into the field of policy decision. Whether to have\n an infrastructural project or not and what is the\n type of project to be undertaken and how it has to\n be executed, are part of policy-making process\n and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a\n policy decision so undertaken. The Court, no\n doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of\n a decision, no law is violated and people's\n fundamental rights are not transgressed upon\n except to the extent permissible under the\n Constitution.***233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous\n power the Court should not be called upon to or\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 11 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n undertake governmental duties or functions. The\n courts cannot run the Government nor can the\n administration indulge in abuse or non-use of\n power and get away with it. The essence of\n judicial review is a constitutional fundamental.\n The role of the higher judiciary under the\n Constitution casts on it a great obligation as the\n sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution\n and the rights of Indians. The courts must,\n therefore, act within their judicial permissible\n limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness\n their power in public interest. It is precisely for\n this reason that it has been consistently held by\n this Court that in matters of policy the court will\n not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring\n the Government to act in a particular manner the\n court ought not to, without striking down the law,\n give any direction which is not in accordance with\n law. In other words, the court itself is not above\n the law."67.In Prag Ice & Oil Mills [Prag Ice & Oil Mills v.\n Union of India, (1978) 3 SCC 459 : AIR 1978 SC\n 1296] , this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 478,\n para 24)\n\n "24. ... We do not think that it is the function of\n this Court or of any court to sit in judgment over\n such matters of economic policy as must\n necessarily be left to the Government of the day to\n decide. Many of them, ... are matters of prediction\n of ultimate results on which even experts can\n seriously err and doubtlessly differ. Courts can\n certainly not be expected to decide them without\n even the aid of experts."68.In P.T.R. Exports (Madras) (P) Ltd. [P.T.R.\n Exports (Madras) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 5\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 12 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004927\n\n\n\n\n SCC 268] , this Court observed as under : (SCC p.\n 272, paras 3 & 5)\n\n " ... In matters of economic policy, it is settled\n law that the court gives a large leeway to the\n executive and the legislature. ... Government\n would take diverse factors for formulating the\n policy ... in the overall larger interest of the\n economy of the country ... The Court therefore\n would prefer to allow free play to the Government\n to evolve fiscal policy in the public interest and to\n act upon the same."69. What is best in the national economy and in what\n manner and to what extent the financial\n reliefs/packages be formulated, offered and\n implemented is ultimately to be decided by the\n Government and RBI on the aid and advice of the\n experts. The same is a matter for decision exclusively\n within the province of the Central Government. Such\n matters do not ordinarily attract the power of judicial\n review. Merely because some class/sector may not be\n agreeable and/or satisfied with such packages/policy\n decisions, the courts, in exercise of the power of\n judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the\n policy decisions, unless such policy could be faulted on\n the ground of mala fides, arbitrariness, unfairness,\n etc."14. In view of the above, this Court cannot pass a writ of mandamus\n directing the State of frame policies regarding the tender conditions to be\n issued by the Government for procurement of ASU drugs manufactured by\n MSMEs. However, this Court directs that the instant Writ Petition be treated\n as a representation. The Respondents herein are, therefore, directed to\n consider the representation of the Petitioners and take a decision on the same\n in accordance with law.Signature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 13 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03\n Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/00492715. With these observations the Writ Petition is disposed of along with\n the pending application(s), if any.16. It is further made clear that this Court has not made any observations\n on the merits of the case.SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J\n NOVEMBER 16, 2022\n Rahul\n\n\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\nDigitally SignedBy:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 13957/2018 Page 14 of 14Signing Date:17.11.2022\n19:53:03 |
21961704-5962-52b1-aa10-08582a572fb3 | court_cases | Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)(Allowed) vs State Of West Bengal on 2 July, 2020Author:Sanjib BanerjeeBench:Sanjib Banerjee1\n\n\n24 02.07.2020C.R.M. 4695 of 2020\nsg (CRAN 2876 of 2020)\n Ct. 16.(Via Video Conference)\n\n In Re: An application for anticipatory bail underSection 438of the Code of Criminal\n Procedure in connection with Chanditala Police Station case No. 103 of 2020 dated\n 15.04.2020 undersections 448/323/325/326/307/504/506/34of the Indian Penal Code.Tapan Malik & Ors.(Allowed)\n Versus\n State of West Bengal\n\n Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Adv....for the petitioner.Mr. S.S. Imam, Adv.Mr. Subrato Roy, Adv....for the State.The petitioners undertake to appropriately stamp the petition as per the\n\n Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The\n\n petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.The petitioners claim that a minor disagreement between two families\n\n led to a bit of violence and an exaggerated complaint has been lodged.The State refers to the injury report. One of the persons suffered a head\n\n injury, but it does not appear that the attack may have been premeditated.Considering the nature of the incident and the extent of the injury, the\n\n petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail. However, the petitioners will report\n\n to the investigating officer as and when called, till the investigation is complete.Subject to above, in the event of arrest, the petitioners will be released\n\n on bail on furnishing security of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each\n\n together with personal release bond of equivalent value each to the satisfaction\n\n of the arresting officer.The petitioners will also comply with the conditions laid down inSection 438(2)of the Code.CRM 4695 of 2020 and CRAN 2876 of 2020 are disposed of.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)\n\n\n\n (Kausik Chanda, J.) |
c87d8f1a-34b3-5876-a915-ad599c56753f | court_cases | Allahabad High CourtJagdish Prasad Verma vs State Of U.P. & 2 Ors. on 11 November, 2020Bench: Saurabh LavaniaHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH\n \n \n\n\n \nCourt No. - 23\n \n\n \nCase :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1054 of 2020\n \n\n \nAppellant :- Jagdish Prasad Verma\n \nRespondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Ors.\n \nCounsel for Appellant :- Rajiva Dubey\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- G.A.\n \n\n \nHon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.Heard Sri Rajiva Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, who has filed counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama on behalf of the private respondent No. 3 and learned AGA for the State.In view of the aforesaid, there is no need to issue notice to the respondent No. 3, as required underSection 15-Aof the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1989").At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to press the prayer/relief pertaining to quashing of charge-sheet and setting-aside the criminal proceedings. He may be permitted to delete the same.The prayer made is allowed.Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to delete the prayer/relief pertaining to quashing of charge-sheet and setting-aside the criminal proceedings forthwith.It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet before the Court below under Sections- 354, 504, 506IPCand 3(1)(da), (dha) of the Act, 1989, P.S.- Kheri, District- Lakhimpur Kheri though during the investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the charges under Sections- 323, 504, 506IPCand 3(1)(da), (dha) of the Act, 1989 are established and without application of mind, learned Court below passed the impugned order, thereby summoning the appellant under Sections- 354, 504, 506IPCand 3(1)(da), (dha) of the Act, 1989. In this regard, reliance has been placed on relevant portion of the Case Diary and certified copy of the charge-sheet. In relevant portion of the Case Diary,Section 323IPC has been mentioned andSection 354IPC has not been mentioned. In the charge-sheet, at serial No. 1 and serial No. 11(XV) also theSection 323IPC has been mentioned in place ofSection 354IPC, under which the appellant has been summoned.In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court on the concluding portion of the charge-sheet as also on the summoning order, under appeal, dated 03.09.2020, whereinSection 354IPC has been mentioned.It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the compromise has been entered into between the parties, which is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent No. 3.In addition, it is submitted that while passing the summoning order, the Trial Court is required to apply its mind and record prima facie satisfaction, which has not been done in the instant case rather without considering the entire material on record, in mechanical manner, the Trial Court has summoned the appellant underSection 354IPC.In this regard, reliance has been placed on judgment dated 05.02.2019, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofState of Gujrat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfattain Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2019. The relevant paras are quoted hereunder:-"21. In summoning the accused, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the materials collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. The court is not required to evaluate the evidence and its merits. The standard to be adopted for summoning the accused underSection 204Cr.P.C. is not the same at the time of framing the charge. For issuance of summons underSection 204Cr.P.C., the expression used is "there is sufficient ground for proceeding....."; whereas for framing the charges, the expression used inSections 240and246IPC is " there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence..... ". At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons underSection 204Cr.P.C., detailed enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of the case is not required. The fact that after investigation of the case, the police has filed charge sheet along with the materials thereon may be considered as sufficient ground for proceeding for issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C.22. In so far as taking cognizance based on the police report, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating Officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisionsof the Criminal Procedure Codeand in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the Investigating Officer and thereafter, charge sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. UnderSection 190(1)(b)Cr.P.C., where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge sheet and for not taking on file. In the present case, cognizance of the offence has been taken by taking into consideration the charge sheet filed by the police for the offence underSections 420,465,467,468,471,477Aand120BIPC, the order for issuance of process without explicitly recording reasons for its satisfaction for issue of process does not suffer from any illegality.Whether revision underSection 397(2)Cr.P.C. against order of issue of process is maintainable:-50. As discussed earlier, while taking cognizance of an offence based upon a police report, it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. As discussed earlier, along with the second supplementary charge sheet, number of materials like statement of witnesses, Bank statement of the respondent-accused and his company Nile Trading Corporation and other Bank Statement, Call Detail Records and other materials were placed. Upon consideration of the second supplementary charge sheet and the materials placed thereon, the Magistrate satisfied himself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent and issued summons. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, erred in interfering with the order of the Magistrate in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.51. In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter when the matter is in nascent stage. When the prosecution relies upon the materials, strict standard of proof is not to be applied at the stage of issuance of summons nor to examine the probable defence which the accused may take. All that the court is required to do is to satisfy itself as to whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The learned Single Judge committed a serious error in going into the merits and demerits of the case and the impugned order is liable to be set aside."Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court passed in Application U/S- 482 No. 882 of 2019, relevant paras of which are quoted below:-"24. From the consideration of all the authorities of the Apex Court cited on behalf of both the parties, it is clear that the minimum requirement for the Magistrate at the time of issuing summons it to record his satisfaction that sufficient material exist on record, collected by the investigating officer, forming prima facie opinion for proceeding against the accused and this opinion or satisfaction should be reflected, in short only, as per requirement of Bhushan Kumar (Supra) from the summoning order passed by the Magistrate. In the present case the following order of summoning has been passed:"17.12.2018 vkt ;g vkjksi i= lh0vks0 dk;kZy; ls izkIr gqvk iqfyl izi=ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA iqfyl izi=ksa ds voyksdu ls dsl Mk;jh esa 161 lh0vkj0ih0lh0 c;kuksa ds vk/kkj ij o oknh vf/koDrk }kjk izk0 i= e; 'k0 i= ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k ¼1½ _f"kiky] ¼2½ dqesjnRr iq=x.k txesUnj] ¼3½ fofiu] ¼4½ lksuw iq=x.k _f"kiky] ¼5½ iz'kkUr iq= fofiu] ¼6½ eksuw] ¼7½ gf"kZr iq=x.k dqesj nRr] ¼8½ jke/kkjh] ¼9½ jkes'oj iq=x.k tksxsUnz] ¼10½ foosd iq= jk/ks';ke] ¼11½ lksuw iq= f'ko dqekj iq= vkse izdk'k] ¼12½ vkse izdk'k dks /kkjk&307@506@336@147@148@149@452 vkbZ0ih0lh0 esa izlaKku fy;s tkus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA izlaKku fy;k x;k ntZ jftLVj gksA /kkjk&309 lh0vkj0ih0lh0 dk vfHk;qDr gf"kZr dk okjUV cuk;k tk;sA udy rS;kj dh tk;sA 'ks"k vfHk;qDr dk tfj;s izkslsl tkjh gksA fnukad 1-1-19 ds fy;s tkjh gksA"25. A perusal of the order shows that the learned Magistrate has not recorded any finding that after going through the statements recorded by the investigating officer underSection 161Cr.P.C. he is satisfied that there is sufficient material against the accuseds and he is satisfied that from the allegations made in the statements sufficient ground for proceeding against them are made out.26. What the Magistrate has recorded is that from the perusal of the case diary containing statements underSection 161Cr.P.C. and from perusal of application along with affidavit filed by the counsel for the informant there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance against the 12 accuseds. In the affidavit in support of the application underSection 482Cr.P.C. the applicants have taken specific ground that one of the accused, Om Prakash, summoned by the Magistrate has died about 10 years ago and he has also been summoned. The Magistrate has not recorded the finding regarding his satisfaction that the allegations on record are such which make out sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.27. The satisfaction of the court should not only be stated but should be apparent from its order passed for summoning the accused. The order should not be explicit in details but should be in minimum possible words showing that the material collected by the inquiry officer has been seen by the Magistrate before issuance summons against the accused. This satisfaction should be apparent from the order and should be objective. It is not required to be subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate but his objective satisfaction clear from the order.28. The reliance on the affidavits of three witnesses attached with the affidavit in support of protest petition also appears to be unwarranted in view of the judgment of this court in Pakkhando and Hari Ram (Supra). The affidavits of witnesses were extraneous to the material collected by the Investigating Officer. The order is also not very clear in this regard.29. Even in service jurisprudence when after disciplinary enquiry of alleged misconduct of a delinquent employee the inquiry officer finds that charges against him are not found to be proved, law is clear that the disciplinary authority is required to give his reasons for not agreeing with the report of the inquiry officer. Disciplinary authority cannot proceed against the delinquent employee further without recording his reasons for disagreement with the report of inquiry officer.30. The provision ofCr.P.C. are per-constitutional and the requirements ofarticle 14and21of the constitution were not there when the subject Indians were subjected to this law. Now every accused is entitled to know as to why and on what ground the report of the investigation officer in his favour has been discarded by the Magistrate. Magistrate should in the least possible words disclose reasons for his act. He cannot be permitted to violate the basic law of the land only on his subjective satisfaction which cannot be understood by the accused unless it is so stated objectively in the order of the Magistrate."Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 could not dispute the aforesaid.After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court with regard to taking cognizance by the Trial Court and passing of the summoning order as also documents placed before this Court, I am of the view that the Trial Court failed to apply its mind while passing the order, under appeal, dated 03.09.2020, as the Court below failed to take note of discrepancy pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, which is in regard to Section(s) 323 and 354IPCmentioned in the charge sheet itself as also in the Case Diary.In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 03.09.2020, passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri vide Special Sessions Trial No. 152/2020, Crime No. 465/2019, under Sections- 354, 504, 506IPCand 3(1)(da), (dha) of the Act, 1989, P.S.- Kheri, District- Lakhimpur Kheri is set-aside.The matter is remanded back to the Court below for passing fresh order in accordance with law.The appeal is finally disposed of in above terms.Order Date :- 11.11.2020\n \nArun/- |
d9687f32-8b25-5bd7-b47a-a9659c83344e | court_cases | National Green TribunalSeetaram vs Veerpal on 2 November, 2023Item No. 03 Court No. 1\n\n BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL\n PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI\n\n Original Application No. 660/2023\n\nSeetaram Applicant\n Versus\n\n\nVeerpal & Ors Respondent(s)\n\n\nDate of hearing: 02.11.2023\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON\n HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER\n\n\n ORDER1. Earlier OA No. 503/2023 was registered on the basis of the\n\ncommunication sent by some of the persons, including Veerpal alleging\n\noperation of dairy farm in Kosi Kalan in violation of the environmental\n\nnorms and the said OA was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated\n\n18.08.2023 by observing as under:"2. In view of the facts as contended by the applicant and\n narrated in the application, we direct that the copy of the\n application be sent to the State PCB with the direction to monitor the\n parameters of noise pollution and if there is any violation,\n necessary action must be initiated in accordance with law.With these observations, Original Application stands disposed of."2. Now, this original application has been registered on the basis of\n\nthe letter dated 14.10.2023 sent by one Seetaram son of Purushotam\n\nresident of Gopal Bagh, Police Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, Uttar\n\nPradesh with the plea that the applicant is running a small dairy at Gopal\n\nBagh, Kosi Kalan adjacent to a drain and some persons of the area are\n\nthreatening and trying to attract money problem and, in that process,\n\nthey send letters to NGT.13. In the application, it is also stated that the applicant voluntarily in\n\npublic interest and in the interest of society and environment is ready to\n\nshift his business and for that purpose one year time may be granted as\n\nabout a dozen employees are surviving on that business.4. The order passed in MA No. 503/2023 indicates that the Tribunal\n\nhad only directed the State PCB to monitor the parameters of noise\n\npollution and to take necessary action in accordance with law if there is\n\nany violation. The said order was not directed against any particular\n\ndairy farm.5. In the present OA, one of the allegations is that the applicants of\n\nearlier OA are threatening and that there are other dairies operating in\n\nthe residential area at Kosi Kalan but action is being taken only against\n\npresent applicant.6. We are of the view that if the State Authorities are taking any\n\naction, they should not target any particular dairy but uniform action\n\nshould be taken against all the defaulting dairies of concerned area in\n\naccordance with law.7. The prayer which has been made by the applicant for extension of\n\ntime does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as there was no\n\nsuch time limit fixed in the earlier order and no specific direction was\n\nissued in this regard.8. In the facts of the present case, the applicant is permitted to\n\napproach the concerned Court or Tribunal for such a relief, in accordance\n\nwith law.29. The OA is accordingly disposed of.Prakash Shrivastava, CP\n\n\n\n Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM\n\nNovember 02, 2023\nOriginal Application No. 660/2023\nDV3 |
74c37886-099e-5f6b-a761-adc6c2f8cc8d | court_cases | Telangana High CourtSunkara Abhilash vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 August, 2021Author:Abhinand Kumar ShaviliBench:Abhinand Kumar ShaviliHON 'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI\n\n W.P.No.19208 OF 2021\n\nORDER:This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or\n "direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent police in calling the\n petitioner to the police station and the respondent police not followed the\n procedure contemplated inArnesh Kumar vs State of Biharand alsoLalita Kumari vs Govt Of U P and Orsand not issued any Sec 41-ACr.P.Cnotice wherein the police has to give notice in two weeks time to\n submit his explanation which is quite illegal, arbitrary and against the\n principles of natural justice and also violation ofArticles 14, 19and21of\n the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent No.3\n not to initiate any coercive steps with regard to arrest against the\n petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court\n may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."01. Heard Sri M.Suryanarayana, learned counsel\n\nappearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for\n\nHome appearing for respondents 1 to 3.02. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner\n\ncontended that without following the lawlaid down bythe Apex\n\nCourt inArnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar1, the official respondents\n\nare trying to arrest the petitioner.03. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the official\n\nrespondents contended that the official respondents have already\n\nissued notice underSection 41-ACr.P.C. and in view of issuance of\n\nthe notice underSection 41-ACr.P.C, the cause in the writ petition\n\ndoes not survive for adjudication.04. Having considered the rival submissions made by the\n\nlearned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that with12014 SC 27562the issuance of notice underSection 41-ACr.P.C, the grievance of\n\nthe petitioner has been resolved.05. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs.Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand\n\nclosed.________________________________\n JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI\n\nDate: 18.08.2021\nrkk |
946ba437-0131-5628-9b51-05bd4a1571df | court_cases | Patna High Court - OrdersVicky Kumar @ Vikki Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 23 December, 2022Author:AnshumanBench:AnshumanIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56839 of 2022\nArising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Patna\n======================================================\nRohit Kumar S/O Mithilesh Prasad, Resident Of Village- Jayram Bigha\n(maimabad), P.S.- Ghosi, District- Jehanabad.\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\nThe State of Bihar\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n======================================================\n with\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 59515 of 2022\nArising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Patna\n======================================================\nRavi Kumar Son Of Jitendra Mistri, Resident Of Village- Shree Nagar, P.S-\nMasaurhi, District- Patna\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\nThe State Of Bihar\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n======================================================\n with\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 59905 of 2022\nArising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Patna\n======================================================\nVicky Kumar @ Vikki Kumar Son Of Sanjay Bhola @ Sanjay Kumar @\nSanjay Prasad, Resident Of Mohalla- Shree Nagar, P.S.- Masaurhi, District-\nPatna\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\nThe State Of Bihar\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n======================================================\n with\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64985 of 2022\nArising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Patna\n======================================================\nNiku Kumar S/O Paulesh Prasad Singh @ Polesh Singh, R/O Village-\nJagdishpur, P.S- Massaurhi, District- Patna\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\nThe State of Bihar\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2022(2) dt.23-12-2022\n 2/10\n\n\n\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n ======================================================\n with\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 65490 of 2022\n Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Patna\n ======================================================\n Vikash Kumar Son Of Late Baijnath Prasad, R/V- Anjni, P.S.- Dhanarua,\n District- Patna\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n The State Of Bihar\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n ======================================================\n with\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67314 of 2022\n Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Patna\n ======================================================\n Avinash Kumar S/O Shankar Prasad, Resident Of Village- Lakhibag, P.S.-\n Masaurhi, District- Patna.\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n The State Of Bihar\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n ======================================================\n with\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67912 of 2022\n Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Patna\n ======================================================\n Vikash Kumar Son Of Vinod Prasad @ Binod Prasad, Resident Of Village -\n Chiraiatarh, P.S.- Dhanarua, District - Patna.\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n The State of Bihar\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n ======================================================\n with\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69674 of 2022\n Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Patna\n ======================================================\n Arvind Kumar S/O Upendra Yadav, R/O Village- Sukana Bigha, P.S.-\n Jehanabad, Distt- Jehanabad.\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2022(2) dt.23-12-2022\n 3/10\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n The State Of Bihar\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n ======================================================\n with\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 71841 of 2022\n Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Patna\n ======================================================\n 1. Prabhat Kumar Son Of Ramesh Kumar, R/O- Shyam Nagar, P.S.- Masaurhi,\n District- Patna\n 2. Uday Kumar Son Of Manglu Yadav @ Mangru Sah @ Mangru Sadhu, R/O-\n Haminagar, P.S.- Kako, District- Jehanabad\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n The State of Bihar\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n ======================================================\n Appearance :\n (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 56839 of 2022)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP\n (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 59515 of 2022)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP\n (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 59905 of 2022)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP\n (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64985 of 2022)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP\n (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 65490 of 2022)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP\n (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67314 of 2022)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP\n (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67912 of 2022)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP\n (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69674 of 2022)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP\n (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 71841 of 2022)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP\n ======================================================\n CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN\n ORAL ORDER\n\n2 23-12-2022Let the defects, if any, be removed within two weeks\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2022(2) dt.23-12-20224/10from today.Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned\n\n A.P.Ps. for the State.The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with\n\n Sessions Trial No. 1063 of 2022, arising out of Jehanabad Rail\n\n P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 lodged underSections 147,148,149,186,447,341,323,325,307,332,333,337,338,353,380,427,435,436,506and120Bof the I.P.C.;Sections 3/4of the\n\n Damage to Public Property Act;Sections 146,147,151,153and174of the Railway Act andSection 27of the Arms Act.There are in total 9 cases arsing from the same P.S.,\n\n therefore, hearing in all 9 cases are being made simultaneously.As per prosecution case, the petitioners are alleged to\n\n be the member of unlawful assembly and protest the\n\n Government's decision relating to implementation of Agnipath\n\n recruitment policy. Allegations of burning train, trying to block\n\n traffic at Station Chowk and trying to stop train by keeping\n\n sleepers on railway track and also misbehaving with the\n\n concerned police officers are there. With these allegations 75\n\n named and 1500 unknown persons were made accused.Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.\n\n 56839 of 2022 submits that petitioner is in custody since\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2022(2) dt.23-12-20225/1028.06.2022 and there is no specific allegation against him. He\n\n further submits that petitioner is a student of Intermediate pass\n\n and has to take admission in B.A. part-I. He further submits that\n\n petitioner visited in the Masaurhi market to take medicine where\n\n he was arrested by the police only on the suspicion. Counsel\n\n further submits that petitioner is not in the CCTV footage. On\n\n the point of his criminal antecedent, counsel submits that there\n\n are two criminal cases pending against him in addition to the\n\n present one but all three cases are relating to Agniveer matter,\n\n save and except his antecedent is clean. He further submits that\n\n similarly situated other co-accused of this case have been\n\n granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as\n\n by this Court.Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.\n\n 59515 of 2022 submits that petitioner is in custody since\n\n 18.06.2022 and there is no specific allegation against him. He\n\n further submits that petitioner is a student of Intermediate pass\n\n and he is accused No.42 in the F.I.R.. Counsel further submits\n\n that petitioner is not in the CCTV footage. On the point of his\n\n criminal antecedent, counsel submits that there are two criminal\n\n cases pending against him in addition to the present one but all\n\n three cases are relating to Agniveer matter, save and except his\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2022(2) dt.23-12-20226/10antecedent is clean. He further submits that charge sheet has\n\n already been filed in this case.Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.\n\n 59905 of 2022 submits that petitioner is in custody since\n\n 28.06.2022 and there is no specific allegation against him. He\n\n further submits that petitioner is not a student rather he is\n\n vendor who used to sale balloon. On the point of his criminal\n\n antecedent, counsel submits that there are two criminal cases\n\n pending against him in addition to the present one but all three\n\n cases are relating to Agniveer matter, save and except his\n\n antecedent is clean. He further submits that similarly situated\n\n other co-accused of this case have been granted bail by the Co-\n\n ordinate Bench of this Court as well as by this Court.Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.\n\n 64985 of 2022 submits that petitioner is in custody since\n\n 18.06.2022 and there is no specific allegation against him. He\n\n further submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no\n\n offence. Police has arrested him when he went to medical shop\n\n to purchase medicine for his mother and remanded in the\n\n present case. He further submits that petitioner is already\n\n graduate and not the aspirant of Agniveer Scheme. He further\n\n submits that similarly situated other co-accused of this case\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2022(2) dt.23-12-20227/10have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court\n\n as well as by this Court.Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.\n\n 65490 of 2022 submits that petitioner is in custody since\n\n 28.06.2022 and there is no specific allegation against him. He\n\n further submits that the name of the petitioner has figured in the\n\n F.I.R. at Serial No. 28. He further submits that petitioner is\n\n labour and he is only person who used to look after his family.\n\n Petitioner is only 8th pass and not the aspirant of Agniveer\n\n scheme. He further submits that similarly situated other co-\n\n accused of this case have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate\n\n Bench of this Court as well as by this Court.Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.\n\n 67314 of 2022 submits that petitioner is in custody since\n\n 12.07.2022 and there is no specific allegation against him. He\n\n further submits that the name of the petitioner has figured in this\n\n case at Sl. No. 6 and petitioner is not the applicant of Agniveer\n\n scheme. He further submits that nothing was recovered from the\n\n possession of the petitioner and there is no criminal antecedent\n\n except the cases relating to Agniveer.Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.\n\n 67912 of 2022 submits that petitioner is in custody since\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2022(2) dt.23-12-20228/1028.06.2022 and there is no specific allegation against him. He\n\n further submits that the of the petitioner has figured at Sl. No.\n\n 45 in the F.I.R.. Counsel further submits that petitioner has no\n\n concern with Agniveer scheme, he is completed his graduation\n\n in B.Sc. Hons. and preparing of higher studies and not interested\n\n for Agniveer scheme. He became the scapegoat to show the\n\n efficiency of the police. He further submits that petitioner is not\n\n in the CCTV footage.Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.\n\n 69674 of 2022 submits that petitioner is in custody since\n\n 18.06.2022 and there is no specific allegation against him. He\n\n further submits that the name of the petitioner has figured in the\n\n F.I.R. at Sl. No. 32 and charge sheet has already been filed in\n\n this case. On the point of his criminal antecedent, counsel\n\n submits that there are two criminal cases pending against him\n\n only relating to Agniveer matter, save and except his antecedent\n\n is clean. He further submits that nothing was recovered from the\n\n possession of the petitioner and petitioner is a student and\n\n prepare for different examination.Learned counsel for the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No.\n\n 71841 of 2022 submits that petitioners are in custody since\n\n 18.06.2022 and there is no specific allegation against them. He\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2022(2) dt.23-12-20229/10further submits that the name of the petitioners have figured in\n\n the F.I.R. at Sl. Nos. 30 and 20. He further submits that\n\n petitioners are neither student of any coaching nor relating to\n\n any political party nor participated in the act of violation. He\n\n further submits that petitioners are law abiding persons and they\n\n are arrested only on suspicion. He further submits that charge\n\n sheet has already been filed in this case and they have clean\n\n antecedent except the cases relating to Agniveer.Learned counsels for the State oppose the prayer for\n\n bail and submits that all the petitioners were opposed the\n\n Central Government Scheme of Agniveer due to which they\n\n were apprehended but the counsels also accept that similarly\n\n situated other co-accused of the present case have already been\n\n granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as\n\n by the present Court.In the present facts and circumstances of these cases\n\n and the submissions made above, let the petitioners above\n\n named, be granted bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/-\n\n (Rupees Thirty thousand) each with two sureties of the like\n\n amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions\n\n Judge-XI, Patna in connection with Rail P.S. Jehanabad\n\n (Taregna) Case No. 66 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2022(2) dt.23-12-202210/10down underSection 437(3)of Cr.P.C. with other following\n\n conditions:A. The petitioners shall support in trial and shall\n\n appear physically before the lower court on each and every date\n\n fixed, in case of non-appearance for two consecutive dates\n\n without sufficient cause, shall be resulted into cancellation of\n\n their bail bonds.B. One of the bailors shall be close relative who shall\n\n file an affidavit before the court about his relationship with the\n\n petitioners.C. The petitioners shall file an affidavit at the time of\n\n furnishing of bail bond that he shall not involve in such criminal\n\n activity during the continuance of present bail bond, violation of\n\n this condition shall be resulted into cancellation of their present\n\n bail bonds.With this observation, the bail applications stand\n\n allowed.(Dr. Anshuman, J.)\nravishankar/-U T |
230c27e9-febd-5b54-b1c4-8027fa34f811 | court_cases | Delhi High CourtMunna Lal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) ... on 16 December, 2020$~37\n* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n Date of decision: 16.12.2020\n+ CRL.M.C. 2465/2020\n MUNNA LAL ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Umesh Gupta, Adv.\n versus\n STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)\n THOUGH SHO/IO & ANR ..... Respondent\n Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State\n SI Renu\n Respondent no.2 and 3 in person\n through VC\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT\n\n J U D G M E N T (ORAL)CRL. M.A. 17406/20201. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. Application is disposed of.CRL.M.C. 2465/20203. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby for\n\nquashing of FIR No. 257/2013 dated 20.6.2013 registered at PS Sarai\n\nRohilla and all other proceedings arising therefrom.4. On oral request of learned counsel for petitioner, I hereby implead\n\nMs. Sneh Prabha as respondent no.3. Petitioner is directed to file amended\n\nmemo of parties during the course of the day.CRL.M.C. 2465/2020 Page 1 of 35. Complainant/respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 are personally\n\npresent in Court through VC and submit that the matter has been settled and\n\nthey do not want to pursue the matter against the petitioner and the present\n\npetition may be allowed.6. Notice issued.7. Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and respondent nos.2 &3. With the consent of counsel for parties, the present petition is taken up for\n\nfinal disposal.8. The present petition is filed on the ground that parties have settled\n\ntheir disputes and respondent nos. 2 and 3 have no objection if the present\n\npetition is allowed.9. Respondent nos.2 & 3are personally present in Court and they have\n\nbeen identified by SI Renu/IO and submits that matter has been settled and\n\nthey do not wish to prosecute the matter any further.10. Petitioner and respondent no.2 have entered into an amicable\n\nsettlement vide settlement deed dated 03.03.2020.11. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to quash\n\nFIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting petitioner any\n\nfurther.CRL.M.C. 2465/2020 Page 2 of 312. For the reasons afore-recorded, FIR No. 257/2013 dated 20.6.2013\n\nregistered at PS Sarai Rohilla and consequent proceedings emanating\n\ntherefrom are quashed.13. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)\n JUDGE\nDECEMBMER 16, 2020\nmsCRL.M.C. 2465/2020 Page 3 of 3 |
4f694c77-dac2-529d-a0f3-1f06371e96dc | court_cases | Manipur High CourtMunna Kumar Singh vs Union Of India; & Ors on 21 June, 2023Bench:Mv Muralidaran,A. Guneshwar SharmaKABORA Digitally signed\n by\nMBAM KABORAMBAM\n Item No. 17\nSANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH\n Date: 2023.06.22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR\nSINGH 13:06:19 +05'30'\n AT IMPHAL\n W.A. No. 100 of 2022\n\n Munna Kumar Singh\n Appellant\n Vs.\n Union of India; & Ors.\n RespondentsBEFORE\n HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MV MURALIDARAN\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA\n\n 21.06.2023\n Acting C.J. :Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms.\n\n Jyotsana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; and Mr. Kh. Samarjit,\n\n learned DSGI, assisted by Mr. Armananda, learned counsel appearing for the\n\n respondents.Reserved for order.JUDGE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE\n Sandeep |
5801a4c3-d4be-5543-a787-c8431d4f03ee | court_cases | Orissa High CourtTuna Pradhan vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 31 May, 2021Author:S.K. SahooBench:S.K. SahooIN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK\n\n ABLAPL No.6236 of 2021\n\n Tuna Pradhan .... Petitioner\n\n Mr.A.N.Pattnayak, Advocate\n\n -versus-\n State of Odisha .... Opp. Party\n\n Mr. Deepak Ranjan Parida,\n Addl. Standing Counsel\n CORAM:\n\n JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO\n ORDEROrder No.\n 31.05.202102. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.2. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has not\n received a copy of the anticipatory bail application.3. Let the learned counsel for the petitioner serve a copy of\n the anticipatory bail application on the learned counsel for the\n State by tomorrow (01.06.2021), who on receipt of the same\n shall obtain instruction as to whether there is any apprehension\n of arrest of the petitioner in the case or not and also obtain the\n criminal antecedents against the petitioner.4. List this matter in the week commencing from 28th June\n 2021 before the appropriate assigned Bench.5. Taking into account the submission made by the learned\n counsel for the petitioner that the offences are triable by\n Magistrate, as an interim measure, it is directed that the\n // 2 //\n\n\n\n\n petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with Capital\n P.S.Case No. 262 of 2021 corresponding to C.T. Case\n No.2478 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,\n Bhubaneswar till the next date subject to further conditions that\n he shall make himself available for interrogation by the\n Investigating Officer as and when necessary and he shall not\n directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise\n to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to\n dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Investigating\n Officer.6. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19\n situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may\n utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's\n website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the\n concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's\n Notice No. 4587 dated 25th March 2020 as modified by Court's\n Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April 2021.( S.K. Sahoo)\nPKSahoo\n Vacation JudgePage 2 of 2 |
a5256dca-aced-5141-acd8-dcac469a56d7 | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nKarnataka High Court\nSri Allabaksh vs State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2022Bench: Mohammad Nawaz\n 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU\n\n DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022\n\n BEFORE\n\n THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ\n\n CRIMINAL APPEAL No.584 OF 2011\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. SRI. ALLABAKASH,\n S/O. HYDERSAB,\n AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,\n RESIDING AT IN FRONT OF\n GOVT. URDU SCHOOL,\n MILLAT NAGAR, KOLAR CITY.\n\n2. SHEIK AMJAD PASHA,\n S/O. AMEER JAN,\n AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,\n RESIDING AT NO.629/1,\n RAHAMATHNAGARA,\n KOLAR CITY. ... APPELLANTS\n\n[BY SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE]\n\nAND:\n\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\nBY KOLAR RURAL POLICE STATION,\nKOLAR. ... RESPONDENT\n\n[BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP]\n\n ***\n\n THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)\nOF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED\n22.03.2011 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,\nKOLAR, IN EACC NO.97/2010 AND AQCUIT THE APPELLANTS FOR\nOFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 379, 427 R/W 34 OF IPC\nAND UNDER SECTION 136 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003, ETC.\n\n THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER\nHEARING, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING,\nTHIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n 2\n\n\n\n\n JUDGMENT\n\n This appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2\nchallenging their conviction and sentence passed by the\n\nCourt of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in\n\nEACC No.97/2010 dated 22.03.2011, whereby they are\n\nconvicted along with accused No.3 for offence punishable\n\nunder Sections 379, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 136 of\n\nthe Electricity Act, 2003.\n\n\n 2. Heard the learned counsel for appellants and\n\nthe learned HCGP for respondent/State and perused the\n\nmaterial on record.\n\n\n 3. The trial Court has sentenced accused Nos.1\n\nand 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months each\n\nfor offence punishable under Sections 379 r/w 34 of IPC,\n\nSection 427 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 136 of the Electricity\n\nAct, 2003, which are ordered to run concurrently.\n\n\n 4. Accused No.3 was given set off for the period of\n\ndetention he had already undergone and hence he has not\n\npreferred any appeal.\n 3\n 5. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that, on\n\n18.07.2010, during night hours, near Moorandahalli village,\n\nKolar taluk, beside Kolar-Chintamani road, the accused\n\npersons committed theft of 1,500 mtrs. of electric cable\n\nwire belonging to BESCOM, damaging 6 electric poles and\n\ncaused loss to the BESCOM to the tune of `40,000/- and\n\nthereby committed the charged offences.\n\n\n 6. The prosecution has got examined P.Ws.1 to 10\n\nand got marked Exs.P1 to 11 to establish its case.\n\n\n 7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating the\n\noral and documentary evidence on record, came to the\n\nconclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the\n\nguilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the\n\ncharged offences.\n\n\n 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the\n\nappellants that the prosecution has failed to establish the\n\nguilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as the\n\npanchwitneses viz., P.Ws.5 and 6 to the seizure of alleged\n\ntheft articles from the possession of the accused have not\n 4\n\n\n\n\nsupported the case of prosecution. He submits that Ex.P4\n\nviz., mahazar drawn in respect of seizure of electric cable\n\nfrom the accused is not proved. He would also contend\n\nthat the alleged theft was brought to the notice of the\n\ncomplainant viz., Section Officer of the BESCOM by one\n\nNataraj, examined as P.W.2. However, his signature is not\n\nfound in the spot-mahazar-Ex.P2. Further contended that\n\nthough it is stated by the prosecution that photographs\n\nwere taken, no such photographs are marked in evidence.\n\nHe would also draw the attention of the Court to the\n\ndiscrepancy with regard to the time of drawing of Ex.P2-\n\nspot mahazar and contended that according to P.Ws.3 and\n\n4 spot-mahazar was prepared at 11.00 a.m. even before\n\nthe complaint was lodged and therefore the prosecution\n\ncase is shrouded with doubt and hence, contends that the\n\naccused are entitled for benefit of doubt.\n\n\n 9. The learned High Court Government Pleader\n\nwould contend that the prosecution has been able to\n\nestablish that the accused have committed theft of electric\n\ncable belonging to the BESCOM by adducing acceptable\n 5\n\n\n\n\nevidence. He would contend that eventhough P.Ws.3 and 4\n\nhave turned hostile, there is nothing to disbelieve the\n\nevidence of the official witnesses. He submits that the\n\naccused were caught red-handed with the theft article\n\nwhich is spoken by P.Ws.1, 7 and 9. He therefore contends\n\nthat there is no illegality committed by the trial Court so as\n\nto reverse the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, seeks to\n\ndismiss the appeal.\n\n\n 10. The complaint is lodged by P.W.1 who was\n\nworking as Section Officer in BESCOM. He has deposed\n\nthat on 19.07.2010 he received an information from\n\nC.W.2-Nataraj [P.M.2] regarding theft of electric cable in\n\nMoorandahalli village. Immediately he went to the spot\n\nand noticed that some miscreants had removed about\n\n1,500 mtrs. of electric cable wire damaging 6 electric poles.\n\nHe lodged complaint as per Ex.P1. He has stated that after\n\nlodging the complaint, the Police visited the spot and drawn\n\nthe spot-mahazar as per Ex.P2.\n\n\n 11. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 would reveal that\n\non the night of 19.07.2010 there was theft of electric cable.\n 6\n\n\n\n\nP.W.2 has stated that this was informed by him to the\n\nSection Officer over phone and thereafter officials came\n\nand inspected the spot. The witnesses have categorically\n\ndenied in the cross-examination to the suggestion put to\n\nthem that no such theft had taken place. There is nothing\n\nelicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve that there\n\nwas theft of electric cable on the night of 19.07.2010.\n\n\n 12. P.W.10 viz., PSI has stated that he received the\n\ncomplaint from P.W.1 at about 2.00 p.m. on 19.07.2010\n\nregarding theft of electric cable and in this connection he\n\nregistered a case and went to the spot ad prepared a\n\nmahazar as per Ex.P2. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the\n\npanchwitnesses to Ex.P4-seizure mahazar. Both of them\n\nhave deposed regarding drawing up of spot-mahazar as per\n\nEx.P2. In the cross-examination of P.W.3, he has stated\n\nthat when Ex.P2 was prepared it was 11.00 a.m. But, that\n\nitself is not a ground to disbelieve the spot-mahazar drawn\n\nas per Ex.P2. Ex.P2 clearly shows that it was prepared\n\nbetween 3.00 and 3.45 p.m. In his cross-examination,\n\nP.W.3 has stated that immediately after lodging the\n 7\n\n\n\n\ncomplaint, the Police have visited the spot and it took\n\nabout one hour for preparing the spot-mahazar. When it is\n\nnot disputed that the case was registered at about 2.00\n\np.m. on 19.07.2010, preparation of the spot-mahazar as\n\nper Ex.P2 cannot be doubted.\n\n\n 13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the\n\nappellants that since P.Ws.5 and 6 have turned hostile, the\n\nseizure of electric cable from the possession of the accused\n\nis not proved. Merely because the said witnesses who\n\nsigned the spot-mahazar have turned hostile, it cannot be\n\nsaid that the prosecution has failed to establish the seizure\n\nof electric cable from the possession of the accused\n\npersons. It is relevant to see that after registration of the\n\ncase, on 26.07.2010, in the wee hours, while P.Ws.7, 9 and\n\n10 and other Police Officials were on patrolling duty\n\nreceived a credible information that some accused are\n\ntraveling from Mulbaglu to Kolar in a TATA vehicle with the\n\ntheft articles. They intercepted the vehicle and\n\napprehended them. From their possession, they seized\n\nabout 11 bundles of electric cable wire, weighing about\n 8\n\n\n\n\n200 kgs. valued at `30,000/- under Ex.P.4. Nothing is\n\nelicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.7, 9 and 10 to\n\ndisbelieve the seizure of electric cable wire from the\n\naccused persons. Merely because they are official\n\nwitnesses, their evidence cannot be doubted or discarded.\n\nP.W.1-Assistant Engineer working as Section Officer at\n\nBESCOM, Kolar Branch, has deposed in his evidence that\n\nhe identified the theft wires and after giving an indemnity\n\nbond received the same from the Police. The indemnity\n\nbond is marked as Ex.P3. He has also identified the sample\n\nwire marked as MO.1. Hence, the prosecution has been\n\nable to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all\n\nreasonable doubt. The trial Court after appreciating the\n\noral and documentary evidence and after giving reasons\n\nhas convicted the accused for the charged offences.\n\nHence, there is no illegality committed by the trial Court.\n\n\n 14. The offence is committed in the year 2010.\n\nAccused No.3 has been given set off for the period of\n\ndetention he has already undergone. The accused were\n\nsentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of\n 9\n\n\n\n\n4 [four] months each for the charged offences. It is\n\nsubmitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader\n\nthat the appellant/accused Nos.1 and 2 were in the custody\n\nfrom 26.07.2010 till 16.08.2010 for a period of about 22\n\ndays. Sending the accused to prison at this stage may not\n\nserve any purpose. Therefore, the sentence imposed by\n\nthe trial Court can be modified by imposing appropriate\n\nfine. Hence, the following:\n\n\n ORDER\n\n\n Appeal is allowed in part.\n The Judgment dated 22.03.2011, convicting the\n\nappellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable\n\nunder Sections 379, 427 r/w 34 IPC and Section 136 of the\n\nElectricity Act, 2003 passed by the Court of I Additional\n\nSessions Judge, Kolar, in EACC No.97/2010 is hereby\n\nconfirmed.\n\n\n The sentence imposed against accused Nos.1 and 2 is\n\nhereby modified. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are\n\nsentenced for the period of detention already undergone by\n 10\n\n\n\n\nthem and each of them shall pay a total fine of `10,000/-\n\n[Rupees ten thousand]. In default of payment of fine, they\n\nshall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 [two]\n\nmonths.\n\n\n Sd/-\n JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nKsm* |
c9dbc90f-7d93-5209-86e1-c341f9d0a336 | court_cases | Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar BenchAbdul Majeed Mir vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 11 November, 2020Author:Dhiraj Singh ThakurBench:Dhiraj Singh ThakurSupplementary Cause List -I\n Case No.101\n\n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR\n AT SRINAGAR\n (Through video conference)\n\n\n CM No. 5139/2020 in\n LPA No. 144/2020\n CM No. 5140/2020\n\nAbdul Majeed Mir .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)\n\n\n Through :- Mr. SajidIrfan, Advocate\n\n\n V/s\n\n\nUT of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)\n\n Through :-\n\n\nCoram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEVINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE\n\n ORDER11.11.2020CM No. 5139/2020Allowed as prayed for.The appellant shall make the deficiencies good within two weeks from\n\nthe date the Court starts functioning normally.Application is disposed of accordingly.LPA No. 144/2020The present Letters' Patent Appeal has been preferred against the\n\njudgement and order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the Writ Court in OWP\n\nNo. 51/2017.LPA No. 144/2020It appears that the respondent No. 5 was a tenant in the property of the\n\n petitioner-appellant, which got gutted in a fire incident, which according to the\n\n case set up by the appellant, was due to the negligence of respondent No. 5. In\n\n the writ petition, the relief prayed for was for issuance of a writ of mandamus\n\n against the respondents, commanding them to release compensation to the tune\n\n of Rs.30 lacs in favour of the appellant for damaging his two storeyed\n\n residential house.The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order impugned\n\n dismissed the petition on the ground that the respondent No. 5 was the private\n\n limited company, which had been incorporated as a tenant and, therefore, in\n\n that view of the matter, no case for grant of any compensation was made out. It\n\n was however, kept open to the petitioner-appellant to avail his civil remedies.\n\n Learned counsel for the appellant states that he had already availed acivil\n\n remedy by approaching the LokAdalat, which had considered his application\n\n and issued directions to the respondents to consider the same.In our opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant has grossly erred\n\n in assuming that the document relied upon by the appellant is in any manner a\n\n civil remedy as was envisaged by the writ Court. We make it clear that a civil\n\n remedy, which was discussed in the writ Court's order indicated to file a civil\n\n suit before a Civil Court.Having gone through the records and having heard learned counsel for\n\n the appellant, we feel that there is no merit in the present appeal, which is\n\n accordingly, dismissed along with connected application.(Vinod Chatterji Koul) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)\n Judge Judge\n SRINAGAR\n 11.11.2020\n (Naresh)NARESH KUMAR2020.11.14 14:30I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document |
2f5ec2aa-ec2f-5b56-a281-400112dec4cd | court_cases | Bombay High CourtNaziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari @ Jabbar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary ... on 18 October, 2022Author:R.D.DhanukaBench:R.D. Dhanuka1 wp-158.21 Naziya\n Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n WRIT PETITION NO.158 OF 2021\n ALONG WITH\n INTERIM APPLICATION NO.921 OF 2019\n\n Naziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari @ Jabbar Sofi )\n Having her address at Room No.154, )\n Hamida Manzil, Near Jawahar Arabic School, )\n Andheri Plot, Jogeshwari (East), )\n Mumbai 400 060. ) .. Petitioner/\n Applicant\n Versus\n 1. State of Maharashtra )\n through the Secretary, Social Justice and )\n Special Assistance, Mantralaya, )\n Mumbai - 400 032. )\n\n\n 2. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee)\n Thane District through its Secretary )\n having its Office at Ground Floor, )\n Room Nos.9 and 10, Kokan Bhavan, Belapur, )\n Navi Mumbai. )\n\n\n 3. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai )\n through its Commissioner having its officer )\n at Mahapalika Marg, CST, )\n Mumbai - 400 001. )\n\n Digitally\n signed by\n SANDHYA\nSANDHYA BHAGU\nBHAGU WADHWA\nWADHWA Date:\n 2022.10.18\n 18:22:22\n +0530\n 2 wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\n4. The Election Commission )\nMantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )\n\n\n5. Neha Khurshid Alam Shaikh )\naged 24 years, residing at Ramaj Bhavanji Chawl, )\nIttehad Chowk, Andheri Plot, Jogeshwari (E), )\nMumbai - 400 060. ) .. Respondents\n\n\n ---\nMr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w Ms. Puja Achrekar for the\npetitioner/applicant.\n\nMr.A.I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the\nrespondent nos.1 & 2.\n\nMr.Om Suryawanshi for the respondent no.3-MCGM.\nMs. Sarika Shetye i/by Mr.S.B. Shetye for the respondent no.4-State\nElection Commission.\n\nMr.R. K. Mendadkar a/w Mr.C.K. Bhangoji and Mr.Tanaji V. Jadhav for\nthe respondent no.5.\n\nMs.Savita Umesh Ranaj (Kabade), Law Officer, District Caste Certificate\nScrutiny Committee, Thane, (Konkan Bhavan-CBD Belapur) -\nrespondent no.2 present.\n ---\n\n\n CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &\n KAMAL KHATA, JJ.\n RESERVED ON : 20TH AUGUST, 2022\n PRONOUNCED ON : 18TH OCTOBER, 2022\n\n\nJUDGMENT :-(PER R.D.DHANUKA, J.)\n\n. By this petition filed underArticle 226of the\n 3 wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nConstitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of\ncertiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated\n27th August 2019 passed by the respondent no.2 i.e.\nDistrict Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidating\nthe Caste Certificate. The petitioner also seeks order and\ndirection against the respondent no.2 to grant validity to\nthe Caste Certificates dated 4 th November 2016 issued by\nthe Competent Authority to the petitioner.2. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for\nquashing and setting aside the impugned Notification\ndated 6th January 2022 debarring/disqualifying the\npetitioner for 6 years from the date of the order for being\nelected or being a Councilor of the respondent no.3.\nSome of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this\npetition are as under :-3. The petitioner had made an application for\ngrant of Caste Certificate to the Competent Authority i.e.\nSub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi. It is the case of the\npetitioner that the petitioner belongs to Muslim Julaha,\nan Other Backward Class (OBC) at Serial No.57 of the\nGovernment Resolution dated 13th November 1967 as\namended from time to time.4. The Competent Authority granted a Caste\nCertificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that the\n 4 wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\npetitioner was Muslim Julaha, an OBC at Serial No.57 of\nthe Government Resolution dated 13th November 1967.5. The petitioner filed nomination paper for one\nof posts of Corporator/Councilor for the General Election of\nthe respondent Corporation and more particularly in\nrespect of Ward No.78. The said post was declared to be\nreserved for other Backward Class Women. Nomination\npaper of the petitioner was declared valid by the Election\nOfficer of the respondent no.4. The election of the said\npost for the period from 2017 to 2022 was held on 12 th\nFebruary 2017. The petitioner secured the highest\nvotes, representing the National Congress Party and was\ndeclared elected. The respondent no.5 had also contested\nthe election from the same ward representing a Political\nParty, Shiv Sena and was declared defeated and\nunsuccessful. The petitioner was required to submit the\nValidity Certificate of the Caste Certificate issued to the\npetitioner. The petitioner therefore, made an application to\nthe respondent no.2 along with the documents for\nvalidating the caste claim of the petitioner.6. The respondent no.5 filed a complaint/objection\nto the said application of the petitioner disputing the caste\nclaim of the petitioner and passed an order dated 21 st\nAugust 2017 and granted Validity Certificate to the\npetitioner.5 wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 21 st\nAugust 2017 passed by the respondent no.2 Committee\nvalidating the caste claim of the petitioner, the\nrespondent no.5 filed a Writ Petition bearing No.12122 of\n2017 before this Court. This Court passed an order in the\nsaid writ petition on 12th June 2019 remanding back the\nmatter to the respondent no.2 Committee and the\ndirected the respondent no.2 Committee to consider\nvarious issues formulated by this Court in the said\njudgment.8. The petitioner thereafter appeared before the\nrespondent no.2 Committee and filed their affidavit\ndated 9th July 2019 along with the documents and\ngenealogical tree in support of her caste claim.9. The respondent no.2 Committee thereafter\nforwarded the said paper to the Vigilance Cell for enquiry\non the issues as directed by this Court as per the\nprovisions of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled\nTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short "the\nsaid Act") and the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,\nScheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),\nNomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special\nBackward Category (Regulation of Issuance and\nVerification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short "the\n 6 wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nsaid Rules").10. It is the case of the petitioner that the said\nVigilance Officer accordingly visited native village of the\npetitioner and conducted home enquiry as well as school\nenquiry. According to the petitioner, the Vigilance Officer\nalso proceeded to examine and recorded statement of\nrespected and responsible persons from the area including\nthe representatives of local self-government. The\nrespondent no.2 Committee thereafter summoned the\nVillage Development Officer of Village Godey, District\nPratapgadh to produce the original Pariwar Register which\nwas produced before the respondent no.2 Committee.11. The petitioner was served with a notice dated\n31st July 2019 and also with a copy of the Vigilance\nReport dated 22nd July 2019 and 29th July 2019. The\npetitioner filed further affidavit in support of her caste\nclaim in response to the said notice. The Vigilance Officer\nrecorded the statements of various persons and\nsubmitted a report before the respondent no.2 Committee.12. It is the case of the petitioner that the respon-\ndent no. 2 committee ought to have accepted the vigi-\nlance officer's report which confirmed after due verifica-\ntion that the petitioner's grandfather resided in Village\nGodey, District Pratapgadh and is a Muslim Julaha and was\n 7 wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\ncarrying out occupation of weaving. It is submitted that\nbased on the vigilance report the respondent no. 2 com-\nmittee ought to have concluded that the caste claim of the\npetitioner was genuine and granted a validity certificate to\nthe petitioner.13. The learned counsel submits that the respon-\ndent no. 2 committee ought to have drawn an adverse in-\nference against the respondent no. 5 and held that the\ndocument relied upon by respondent no. 5 was fabricated\ndocument and had played a fraud on the respondent no. 2\ncommittee.14. The learned counsel relied on a registered\nagreement dated 3rd November 2004 to show the speci-\nmen signature of her father was completely different from\nForm AR6 relied upon by respondent no. 5. It was submit-\nted that the existence of stamp over the documents\nevinced that the copies received by the research officer\nwere not copies of the original records of the Deputy Divi-\nsional Officer. Consequently, a forged signature bearing\ndocument was the basis of the conclusion derived by the\nrespondent no. 2 committee.8 wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc15. The learned counsel submitted that the copy of\nthe Pariwar register which showed the caste entry related\nto grandfather as "Muslim" only produced by the respon-\ndent no. 5 ought to have been rejected as the vigilance\nofficer had recorded statement of Village Development\nofficer who confirmed that the sr. no. 161 showed the\nname of Mohd. Salim who was recorded as Muslim Julaha.16. The learned counsel drew our attention to the\nschool records of the Primary School, village Godey and\ncontended that the said document proved that the peti-\ntioner's father had left the school on or about 31 st January\n1962 and that he had migrated from village Godey.17. The learned counsel requested the court to con-\nsider the evidentiary value of the ration card issued in\nfavour of the petitioner's father to substantiate that the\npetitioner's father is a resident of Bhiwandi. It is submitted\nthat instead of considering the report of the vigilance offi-\ncer that was made in compliance of the High Court direc-\ntions, the Respondent No. 2 committee has erroneously\nreferred to and relied upon extraneous and extra ordinary\nmaterial placed by the Respondent No. 5 before it. The\nlearned counsel further submitted that the Respondent\nNo. 2 committee also failed to give credence to the school\nleaving certificate issued by the Nalanda High School.9 wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc18. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 com-\nmittee ought not to have rejected the power loom permit\nthat was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner on\nthe ground that he would have been 15 years of age when\nsuch permit was granted and to have considered that\nthere was no provision which prohibited the issue of a\npower loom permit at the age of 15. It is submitted that\nthe Respondent No. 2 committee ought to have given fur-\nther opportunity to the petitioner before concluding the\nhearing. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 com-\nmittee completed the entire exercise in extra ordinary\nhaste and consequently was denied a reasonable opportu-\nnity to prove her case.19. The learned counsel of the petitioner further\nsubmits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity\nto deal with the voter information on the date when the\nmatter was closed for order and ought to have given the\npetitioner an opportunity to give her response to the said\ndocument. It is submitted that despite the fact of pen-\ndency of the present writ petition, the Respondent No. 3\nby its letter no. MGC/F/417 dated 21 September 2019 un-\nseated the petitioner based on the order dated 27 August\n2019.10 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc20. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied\nupon the following judgements in support of this case.a. Smt. Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed (Mujawar)\n @ Bismilla Allabaksh Shikkalagar vs Divisional\n Caste Certificate Committee No. 1, Solapur\n through its Member Secretary & Ors;1\n b. Jamadar Mehaboob Ghudubai versus State of\n Maharashtra & Ors;2\n c. Ansar Abdul Rashid Manchekar through his fa-ther and natural guardian Rashid Jikriya\n Manchekar V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors3\n d. Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal V/s State of\n Maharashtra4\n e. Firdos Ayyub Koti V/s The Divisional Caste Cer-tificate Scrutiny Committee5\n f. Shri Imran A. Ajij Shaikh V/s State of Maharash-tra & Ors6\n g. Shri Shahjahur Aminullah Momin V/s State of\n Maharashtra7\n h. Mr. Akhtar Kadar Jamadar V/s State of Maha-rashtra & Ors81 Writ Petition No. 10577 of 20132 Writ Petition No. 11394 of 20163 Writ Petition No. 188 of 20144 Writ Petition No. 2674 of 20165 Writ Petition No. 1247 of 20156 Writ Petition No. 8044 of 20137 Writ Petition No. 8687 of 20158 Writ Petition No. 1401 of 201811 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc21. Per Contra, Mr. Mendadkar learned counsel for\nthe respondent No. 5 supports the order of the scrutiny\ncommittee dated 27th August 2019. He submits that this is\nthe second round of litigation of the petitioner. The peti-\ntioner's case is based on fraud and should not be enter-\ntained. It is submitted that the petitioner has produced\nfake certificate to prove her claim and should be ousted\non that ground alone.22. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner\nhas sought to misguide the officer as well as produced\nfraudulent documents to substantiate her case. Although\nthe father was born in Uttar Pradesh's Godey district she\nproduced the birth certificate of her father showing that\nhe was born in Bhiwandi, Thane Mumbai thereby deceiv-\ning the authority. The learned counsel submits that as per\nRule 3 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified\nTribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward\nClasses and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Is-\nsuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012\n(for short "MSCC Rules) the petitioner ought to have ap-\nplied where her father or grandfather or great grandfather\nresided i.e. in UP and not in Maharashtra. It is submitted\nthat the committee also had to consider as to whether the\nname of the petitioner's father was Abdul Hafiz or Mohd.\nHafiz. The learned counsel submitted that by merely filing\n 12 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nan affidavit, the Court cannot consider it conclusive evi-\ndence. The learned counsel drew our attention to pages\n364, 191 and 189 and submitted that the statement of\nperson Ubadulla Ameen cannot be accepted in as much\nas, if he was 70 years old on 28 th July 2019 then on 7th\nFebruary 1962 he was just 13 years old and could not\nhave been running a power loom as sought to be sug-\ngested by the certificate at page 189 and could not certify\nthat the Petitioner's father (who would be 12 years old as\nper the Aadhar card age shown) was working with him.23. The learned counsel submits that the in order to\navail of Rule 13 (d) of the MSCC Rules, the Petitioner has\nnot proved that she was born in Maharashtra. It is submit-\nted that as on 27th February 2022 the Petitioner's father\nwas on the voters list in Uttar Pradesh. It is submitted that\nthe petitioner has failed to challenge the Vigilance Inquiry\nReport dated 22nd July 2019 or the finding that her parents\nare on the voters list of Pratapgad, Uttar Pradesh. The\nlearned counsel submitted that it was incumbent on the\npetitioner to disclose all true and correct information, in-\ncluding disclosure of adverse entries or material failing\nwhich it was lawful for the Scrutiny Committee to draw ad-\nverse inference.13 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc24. The learned counsel relied upon the following\njudgements in support of his contentions:a. Aanandra Vithoba Adsul V/s State of\n Maharashtra & Ors9;\n\n b. S. P. Chengalvara Naidu V/s Jagannath &\n Ors;10\n\n c. Prakash J. Koli V/s State of Maharashtra ;11\n\n d. Derry & Ors. Peek;12\n\n e. Bir Singh V/s Delhi Jal Board & Ors.;1325. In response/rejoinder Dr Warunjikar submitted\nthat the court had to consider whether natural justice was\ndone to the petitioner. He submitted that since the peti-\ntioner was an ordinary resident Rule 13 (d) was required\nto be followed and Rule 3 did not make any distinction and\ncannot be given a restricted meaning and ought to be\nused to find out the truth. It was submitted that the Peti-\ntioner was obliged to prove every aspect beyond reason-\nable doubt and not beyond all doubts.9 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 793\n10 (1994) 1 SCC 1\n11 2008 (2) Mh. L. J 511\n12 [1886-90] All E. R. 1\n13 (2018) 10 SCC 312\n 14 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nREASONS AND CONCLUSION26. We have heard Dr Warunjikar on behalf of the\nPetitioner and Mr. Mendadkar on behalf of the Respon-\ndents at length, perused the papers with their able assis-\ntance and have deliberated on their rival submissions.27. This Court by its order dated 12th June 2019 per-\nmitted the petitioner to produce the family tree and ge-\nnealogy which could establish the relationship with the\nperson whose name is in the family register; and that her\ngrandfather has a son by the name of her father; and that\nher grandfather had resided in that village and carried on\nthe traditional occupation; and that her grandfather and\nfather shifted to the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner\nwas also permitted to prove her claim by relying upon not\nonly the document but the material relied upon to support\nthe entry therein. The petitioner was given an opportunity\nto establish and prove her claim independent of the school\nleaving certificate of her father. The respondent no. 2 was\nrequired to investigate and submit a report.28. It is evinced from the record that, the pariwar\nregister and the statements recorded by the vigilance offi-\ncer as produced before the respondent no. 2 committee\nthat the petitioner's father and grandfather were from\nPratapgad in UP. Consequently, the petitioner ought to\n 15 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nhave applied for issuance of caste certificate from the\nplace of ordinary residence i.e. the place of permanent\nresidence of her father or grandfather or great grandfa-\nther under sub rule (2) of Rule 3 of the MSCC Rules. On\nthis ground itself the petitioner was not entitled to the is-\nsuance of the caste certificate from the State of Maharash-\ntra and consequently the benefits and concessions meant\nfor OBC candidates in the State of Maharashtra as held by\nthe Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh (supra).29. Furthermore, the father of the petitioner was\nfully aware that he was born in the State of Uttar Pradesh\non 15th August 1950 and was educated in primary school\nat Gode during the year 1961-62; but despite that, he\nmade a false statement in his affidavit dated 30 th January\n2017 before the JMFC Bhiwandi that he was born in Bhi-\nwandi on 1st January 1945 and obtained an order from the\nJMFC, Bhiwandi which directed Bhiwandi Nizampur City\nMunicipal Corporation to register the date of birth of Abdul\nHafiz Mohd. Salim Ansari based on a fabricated school\nleaving certificate of Nalanda High School, Borivali (East),\nMumbai showing the date of birth as 1 st January 1945, ob-\ntained a birth certificate on 26 th June 2017. This method\nadopted by the petitioner's father clearly evinces mens\nrea. There is no other document evincing that the father of\nthe petitioner or her grandfather are ordinary resident of\nState of Maharashtra. Consequently, in our view, the peti-16 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\ntioner would not be entitled to issuance of Caste Certifi-\ncate as per sub rule (3) of Rule 3 of the MSCC Rules which\ndeal with case of migration within the State of Maharash-\ntra. We are bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Bir Singh (supra) wherein\nit held that a migrant from State of Uttar Pradesh was not\nentitled to any benefits and concessions meant for OBC\ncandidates in the State of Maharashtra.30. In so far as the verification of form AR-6 that has\nbeen issued by the Central Excise Department in favour of\nthe Petitioner's father on 25th March 1965 is concerned,\nThe vigilance cell officer was informed that the records\nwere destroyed and even the genuineness of AR-6 could\nnot be verified. It was urged that even otherwise the AR-6\ncould not be considered as the father had claimed to have\nbeen born on 1st January 1945 and had applied for license\nin the year 1965 i.e. when he was 20 years of age. How-\never, the documents now brought on record evince that\nhe was born in the year 1950 and consequently was a mi-\nnor of 15 years when the Power loom license was granted.\nWe find merit in the submission of Mr. Mendadkar that no\nlicense could be granted by any government authority to a\nminor. Per contra, we are unable to agree with the submis-\nsion of Mr. Warunjikar that there was no restriction to the\nage in granting of a power loom license.17 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc31. The petitioner has not been able to produce any\ndocument dated prior to 13 th October 1967 showing caste\nof any of the blood relatives as "Julah" in the State of Ma-\nharashtra. The Pariwar Register from State of Uttar\nPradesh which shows the word "Julah" is in relation to\nScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and not in relation\nto OBC category and that to was prepared only after 1970\ni.e. rewritten in 1992 on the ground that the record had\nbecome obsolete as per the report of the vigilance cell.\nFurthermore, there is no name of the petitioner in the Pari-\nwar Register. The respondent no. 2 is also not satisfied be-\nyond reasonable doubt as to whether Abdul Hafiz is the\nson of Mohd. Salim and has consequently held that the pe-\ntitioner has not proved her case. In our view too, the peti-\ntioner has failed to prove and establish the genealogy tree\nas per the order of this Court on 12th June 2019.32. After perusing the impugned Order of the re-\nspondent no. 2 committee, it is abundantly clear that the\nrespondent no. 2 has accepted the report of the vigilance\ncell. It is evident that they have considered every aspect\nof the matter and given their due consideration to all the\ndocuments produced, oral arguments and written submis-\nsions of both the advocates. We find that the respondent\nno.2 committee has considered the entire material on\n 18 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nrecord and recorded findings based on evidence placed\nbefore it and after considering the same has rightly come\nto the conclusion to invalidate the caste certificate issued\nto the petitioner. The findings rendered by the respon-\ndent no.2 are not perverse. It is well settled that this\nCourt is not to sit in appeal to re-appreciate the findings\nas held by the Supreme Court in case of Kum.Madhuri\nPatil vs Additional Commissioner Tribal Develop-ment14. In our view in view of this mandate, we are not in-\nclined to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by\nthe respondent no. 2 committee.33. The petitioner who is an applicant under the\nMSCC Rules is admittedly born after the deemed date i.e.\n13th October 1967 and ought to have applied from the\nplace of permanent residence of her father or grandfather\nwhich would be Pratapgad in U.P. and not from Maharash-\ntra. She being a migrant after the deemed date was not\nentitled to contest elections in Maharashtra. The Supreme\nCourt in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste\nCertificate to Schedule Tribes in the State of Maharashtra\nand ors15 held as under:"It will thus, be seen that so far as the Government\nof India is concerned, since the date of issuance of the\ncommunication dated 22nd March 1977, it has firmly held\n\n14 (1994) 6 SCC 641\n15 (1994) 5 SCC 244\n 19 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nthe view that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person\nwho migrates from the State of his origin to another State\nin search of employment or for educational purposes or\nthe like, cannot be treated as a person belonging to the\nScheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of the State to which he\nmigrates and hence he cannot claim benefit as such in the\nlatter State".34. It would be appropriate to cite the case of\nAanandra Vithoba Adsul (supra) which observed that\n"A wrong caste validity certificate granted in favour of the\nparty does not belong to that caste may deprive a gen-\nuine and deserving person belonging to such reserve cat-\negory of the caste and all the benefits prescribed in the\nConstitution of India." The Petitioner has clearly tried and\nalmost succeeded in depriving another genuine candidate\nto avail the benefits of the caste in the elections.35. We find no merit in the submission of Mr.\nWarunjikar, that the respondent no.2 ought to have given\nan opportunity to the petitioner for explaining the name of\nher parents in the voters list in Pratapgad in UP. This Court\nhad granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to\nprove her case and it is apparent that the petitioner has\nfailed to come to this Court with clean hands. We see no\n 20 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nreason to give any further latitude to the petitioner in\nthese circumstances.36. We shall now deal with the judgments relied\nupon by the Petitioner in support of her contentions.37. Apropos the judgment of this Court, in case of\nSmt. Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed (supra), and\nmore particularly paragraph 5 relied upon by the peti-\ntioner's counsel, we are not in variance thereto. In our\nview, the facts, in this case, are that the petitioner's father\nis from Pratapgad in U. P. and not a migrant within the\nState of Maharashtra as was the case in the judgement re-\nlied upon hence is distinguishable and does not support\nthe petitioner. Consequently, we cannot accept the\nlearned counsel's submission that it was necessary for the\nVigilance cell to make an enquiry in terms of Rule 13 sub-\nrule 1, clause (d) of the MSCC Rules.38. Apropos the decision of this Court, in the case of\nJamadar Mehaboob Ghudubai (supra), which relies on\nthe decision of Smt. Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed\n(supra) in our view would not assist the petitioner's case\nas the Scrutiny Committee had discarded the Vigilance\nCell report on the ground that the same was not binding\n 21 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\non the Scrutiny Committee. In the present case, the Scru-\ntiny Committee has considered the report of the Vigilance\nCell that is against the petitioner and which has not been\nchallenged by the petitioner.39. Apropos the decision of this Court, relied upon\nby the petitioner in the case of Ansar Abdul Rashid\nManchekar (supra), the order of the Scrutiny Committee\nwas set aside since they had not referred to the material\nproduced by the petitioner. The present case is distin-\nguishable since the petitioner has not challenged the re-\nport of the vigilance cell which was considered along with\nthe material produced by the petitioner.40. Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nKumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal (supra) decided by\nthis Court, it was held that the Scrutiny committee is\nbound to consider the vigilance cell's report and that there\nwas no reason to disbelieve the same if it's in favour of\nthe petitioner. This case too does not assist the petitioner\nas in her case the Scrutiny Committee has considered the\nvigilance cell report which is against the petitioner and not\nchallenged by her.22 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc41. Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nMrs. Firdos Ayyub Koti (supra) where this Court held\nthat the Scrutiny Committee had wrongly disagreed with\nthe report of the Vigilance Cell and there was no contra-\ndictory material before the Scrutiny Committee to disre-\ngard the material placed on record which is distinguish-\nable in the present case in as much as the Scrutiny Com-\nmittee has considered the report of the Vigilance Cell and\nall the material before it. Hence this judgement would not\nassist the petitioners.42. Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nShri Imram A. Ajij Shaikh V/s State of Maharashtra\n& Ors. (supra) wherein it was held that once the report is\nin favour of the candidate found to be genuine and true,\nno further action needs to be taken except where the re-\nport or the particulars given are procured or found to be\nfalse or fraudulently obtained or serious doubts are raised.\nIn our view this judgment is distinguishable in as much as\nthe material produced before the Scrutiny Committee,\nwere fraudulent documents and raised serious doubts.43. Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nShri Shahjahur Aminullah Momin (Supra) wherein the\nScrutiny Committee report was set aside for want of rea-\nsons to disagree with the Vigilance Cell report. This judge-\nment is distinguishable in as much as the material pro-23 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nduced before the Scrutiny Committee, were fraudulent\ndocuments and raised serious doubts and will not assist\nthe petitioner.44. Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nMr. Akhtar Kadar Jamadar (supra) wherein the Scrutiny\nCommittee report was set aside as it had not applied the\naffinity test nor considered the vigilance cell report, is dis-\ntinguishable from the present case where the Scrutiny\nCommittee has considered the report of the Vigilance Cell\nand all the material before it. Hence this judgement would\nnot assist the petitioners.45. In our view, entertaining a petitioner who has\nknowingly produced fabricated and fraudulent documents\nto substantiate a false claim cannot be tolerated at any\nstage. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's\ncase is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the\nCourt. The petitioner is guilty of playing fraud on the Court\nas well as on the opposite party. In our view, we find no in-\nfirmity to set aside the order dated 27 th August 2019\npassed by respondent no. 2. The Petition is dismissed with\ncosts of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the respondent no.1.\nRule is discharged. Parties to act on the authenticated\ncopy of this order.24 wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc46. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the pending\nInterim Application does not survive and the same is\naccordingly disposed off.[KAMAL KHATA, J.] [R.D. DHANUKA, J.] |
43b9bcba-49e5-5426-8966-23ecd7100048 | court_cases | Delhi High Court - OrdersGpl-Rktcpl Jv vs National Faceless Assessment Centre ... on 3 June, 2021Author:Rajiv ShakdherBench:Rajiv Shakdher,Talwant Singh$~1\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n + W.P.(C) 5546/2021 & CM APPL. 17180/2021\n GPL-RKTCPL JV .....Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate and\n Mr. Aditya Vohra, Advocate.\n versus\n NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI\n (EARLIER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI)\n .....Respondent\n Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate.\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH\n ORDER% 03.06.2021\n [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]1. Today, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned counsel, has entered\n appearance on behalf of the respondent/revenue. Mr. Maratha says that\n notwithstanding the narrow timeframe granted to the petitioner for filing a\n reply/objection to the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order dated\n 22.04.2021, he would want to place on record a counter-affidavit.2. To be noted, the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order dated\n 22.04.2021 called upon the petitioner to file a reply/objection by 23:59 hours\n on 23.04.2021.3. On 27.05.2021, when notice was issued in the matter, we had\n recorded the following assertions made on behalf of the petitioner in\n paragraph 3.3. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter:3.3. The petitioner avers that, it learnt about the aforesaid show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order, via its counsel, only after the impugned assessment\n order, had been already passed, i.e., on 25.04.2021, as the father of theW.P.(C) 5546/2021 1/3Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:HARIOMSigning Date:10.06.202112:51:01petitioner's counsel was admitted in hospital due to coronavirus and therefore,\n he could not access his e-mail. It is also the petitioner's case that, due to\n lockdown imposed in the State of Chhattisgarh on account of coronavirus, it was\n not possible to collate documents, and file the reply/objections to the show cause\n notice cum draft assessment order. It is in these circumstances, according to the\n petitioner, a request for adjournment was filed with the respondent."4. It is submitted by Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing\n on behalf of the petitioner, that given the aforesaid facts, the timeframe\n granted by the Assessing Officer (in short "AO") for filing objections was\n extremely constricted, and therefore, that by itself breaches the principles of\n natural justice. Mr. Vohra says that the opportunity has to be adequate and\n more so, in the present times, when people are afflicted with Coronavirus\n and, are not able to go about their normal business.5. Mr. Maratha, however, contends to the contrary.\n 5.1 At this stage, we tend to agree with Mr. Vohra, that the timeframe\n granted to the petitioner was extremely narrow. The reasons given by the\n petitioner, which are supported by an affidavit, appear viable to us at this\n point in time. The matter will be examined once the counter-affidavit is filed\n on behalf of the respondent/revenue.6. Accordingly, list the matter on 21.09.2021.W.P.(C) 5546/2021 2/3Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:HARIOMSigning Date:10.06.202112:51:017. In the meanwhile, there shall be a stay on the operation of the\n assessment order issued under Section 143(3) read withSection 144Bof the\n Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), for the Assessment Year 2018-\n 2019, dated 24.04.2021 and accompanying notice for demand issued underSection 156of the Act, as well as notice for initiating penalty proceedings\n issued underSection 271AAC(1)of the Act.RAJIV SHAKDHER, J\n\n\n TALWANT SINGH, J\n JUNE 3, 2021/pa\n Click here to check corrigendum, if anyW.P.(C) 5546/2021 3/3Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:HARIOMSigning Date:10.06.202112:51:01 |
3f77420d-bb68-526f-89c4-438c789b9963 | court_cases | Patna High Court - OrdersKail Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2020Author:Rajeev Ranjan PrasadBench:Rajeev Ranjan PrasadIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n (FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION)\n CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25967 of 2020\n Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2012 Thana- PARAIYA District- Gaya\n ======================================================\n 1. KAIL CHAUDHARY Son of Nanhak Chaudhary Resident of Village-\n Bagahi, P.S.- Paraiya, District- Gaya.\n 2. Shiva Chaudhary Son of Ramdas Chaudhary Resident of Village- Bagahi,\n P.S.- Paraiya, District- Gaya.\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n THE STATE OF BIHAR\n\n ... ... Opposite Party/s\n ======================================================\n Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate\n For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP\n ======================================================\n CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD\n ORAL ORDER\n\n3 16-10-2020Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to\n\n remove all the defects, as pointed out by office within four\n\n weeks after start of normal functioning of the Court.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.\n\n Zainul Abedin, learned APP for the State.The petitioners in the present case are seeking pre-\n\n arrest bail in connection with Paraiya P.S. Case No. 71/2012\n\n registered for the offences punishable underSections 406and34of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from\n\n the first information report it will appear that this case has been\n\n lodged on the basis of a letter written by the Deputy\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25967 of 2020(3) dt.16-10-20202/4Development Commissioner, Gaya pointing out that in the\n\n report of the Auditor General of the Government of India a sum\n\n of Rs. 4,75,000/- has remained outstanding against the Millieum\n\n Pales Scheme Group and in this regard the Chairman and\n\n Secretary of the group were directed to do the work. It is alleged\n\n that against the amount provided to the group the list of\n\n beneficiaries shows the work value of Rs. 1,64,797/- only,\n\n therefore, the remaining amount out of Rs. 4,75,000/- is to be\n\n recovered. So far as these two petitioners are concerned, their\n\n name appears at serial no. 2 and against him a sum of Rs.\n\n 2,256/- has been shown recoverable whereas petitioner no. 2 is\n\n also named in the same column and in fact from both of them\n\n the said amount of Rs. 2256/- has been shown recoverable.Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have\n\n already deposited the said amount earlier but had not taken the\n\n receipt but even at this stage the petitioners are ready to deposit\n\n the said amount of 2256/- for purpose of grant of anticipatory\n\n bail but without prejudice to their contention.Learned APP for the State has though opposed the\n\n prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners but taking note of\n\n the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that till\n\n date no chargesheet has been filed against these petitioners and\n Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25967 of 2020(3) dt.16-10-20203/4further that co-accused similarly situated have been granted\n\n privilege of anticipatory bail by learned coordinate Bench of\n\n this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 83738/2019 and the petitioners are\n\n ready to deposit Rs. 2256/- with the Block Development Officer\n\n subject to result of the case and without prejudice to their\n\n contentions, this Court directs that in case of their\n\n arrest/surrender within four weeks from today, petitioners be\n\n released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty\n\n five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the\n\n satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. - 2nd, Gaya, in connection with\n\n Paraiya P.S. Case No. 71/2012, subject to the conditions as laid\n\n down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. i.e.(i) a condition that the person shall make himself\n\n available for interrogation by a police officer as and when\n\n required;(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or\n\n indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any\n\n person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade\n\n him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police\n\n officer;(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India\n\n without the previous permission of the Court.Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25967 of 2020(3) dt.16-10-20204/4Further condition that they will deposit Rs. 2256/-\n\n with the Block Development Officer, Paraiya, Gaya who will\n\n receive the same and shall grant a certificate in this regard to the\n\n petitioners immediately on deposit which will also be filed\n\n before the learned court below while submitting bail bond.And further condition that the court below shall verify\n\n the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any\n\n stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed his criminal\n\n antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of\n\n bail bond of the petitioners.This application stands disposed off accordingly.(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)\n arvind/rajeev\n\n U TNote: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements,\nduring Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court\nwebsite under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'. |
1c6f130e-ba52-5259-8197-e0846d06a94e | court_cases | Delhi High CourtZhudao Infotech Private Limited vs The Principal Additional Director ... on 22 May, 2023Author:Vibhu BakhruBench:Vibhu Bakhru2023:DHC:3781-DB\n\n\n\n\n $~25\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n % Date of Decision: 22.05.2023\n\n + W.P.(C) 3428/2023 & CM APPL. 13239/2023, CM APPL.\n 25805/2023\n ZHUDAO INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Senior Advocate\n with Mr. Jitin Singhal, Ms.\n Vasundhara Shankar, Ms. Aastha\n Arora, Mr. Mudit Kaushik, Mr.\n Yash Chandra, Mr. Arnab\n Chatterjee, Mr. Virat Anand, Mr.\n Shashank and Mr. Kumar Sambhav,\n Advs.\n Versus\n THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR\n GENERAL & ANR ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior\n Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani\n Mathur and Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur,\n Advs.\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN\n\n VIBHU BAKHRU, J.1. The petitioner (hereafter 'ZIPL') has filed the present petition\n under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders\n dated 10.10.2022 and 06.10.2022 (hereafter 'the impugned orders')\n passed by respondents nos.1 and 2, respectively. In terms of the\n impugned orders, ZIPL's bank accounts (Current AccountSignature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 1 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB\n\n\n\n\n No.50200076276270 maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd.,SCO-15,\n Sector-14, Gurugram; Escrow / Nodal Account No.017261100000041\n and Current Account No.017281300000462 maintained with Yes Bank\n Ltd., DLF Cyber City, Gurugram) were attached underSection 83of\n the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter 'theCGST\n Act'). By a communication dated 10.10.2022 addressed to the Branch\n Manager of Yes Bank Ltd., respondent no.1 also directed the Branch\n Manager, Yes Bank to hold at least ₹643 crores in ZIPL's Escrow /\n Nodal Account No.01726110000004.2. ZIPL also impugns an order dated 01.02.2023, passed by\n respondent no.1 in effect, rejecting the objections raised by ZIPL under\n Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter\n 'the CGST Rules').3. ZIPL contends that the orders passed underSection 83of the\n CGST Act are illegal as there is no ground for the respondents to believe\n that it was necessary to attach ZIPL's bank accounts in the interest of\n the Revenue.4. ZIPL operates a payment aggregator platform under the name\n 'Onion-Pay'. It has onboarded various merchants on the said platform,\n which is used by merchants and their customers to pay for goods and\n services.5. ZIPL claims that its role is limited to processing payments and it\n is not concerned with the supply of any services by any of the merchants\n using its online platform.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 2 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB6. ZIPL also claims that it has complied with the 'Know Your\n Customer' (KYC) requirements in respect of the merchants using its\n platform but has no control over their activities in relation to the supply\n of goods and services, which may be chargeable to GST. ZIPL charges\n a transaction fee and claims that it has duly discharged the GST on the\n amounts charged from merchants for use of its online payment\n platform.7. ZIPL states that the payments are received in the Escrow / Nodal\n accounts, which are maintained in terms of the guidelines issued by the\n Reserve Bank of India (hereafter 'RBI'). ZIPL is entitled to only part\n of the payments under the Escrow / Nodal accounts and the balance\n amounts are required to be paid to the merchants and suppliers who\n have used the services of ZIPL for facilitating receipt of payments from\n their customers.8. Undisputedly, the attachment of ZIPL's Escrow / Nodal account\n would result in effectively shutting down its business as it would no\n longer be able to operate the online platform.Factual Context9. A search was conducted on the premises of ZIPL as well as it\n Directors on 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022. As noted above, the\n impugned orders attaching ZIPL's bank accounts were passed on\n 06.10.2022 and 10.10.2022.10. Aggrieved by the same, ZIPL filed its objections under RuleSignature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 3 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB\n\n\n\n\n 159(5) of the CGST Rules, praying that its bank accounts be defreezed.\n The respondents did not consider the said objections and sent a letter\n dated 04.01.2023, informing ZIPL that its objections were not in the\n correct / prescribed format.11. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, ZIPL approached this\n Court by filing a writ petition [W.P.(C) No.492/2023], inter alia,\n praying that the impugned orders be set aside. Before this Court, it was\n contended on behalf of the respondents that there was a serious\n apprehension that the merchants onboarded and transacting through\n ZIPL's online platform, Onion-Pay, were not genuine. This Court\n disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated 16.01.2023,\n directing the respondents to pass a speaking order in respect of the\n objections raised by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from\n the said date.12. Thereafter, respondent no.1 scheduled a personal hearing and\n provided an opportunity to ZIPL to submit relevant documents. ZIPL's\n objections under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules was rejected by an\n order dated 01.02.2023, which is also assailed in the present petition.Order dated 01.02.202313. The order dated 01.02.2023 indicates that during the course of\n proceedings relating to the objections preferred by the petitioner,\n respondent no.1 had called upon ZIPL to furnish details showing the\n names, bank account numbers and IFSC codes of third-party merchants\n and users to whom the funds were required to be paid from the EscrowSignature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 4 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB\n\n\n\n\n / Nodal account. In compliance with the same, ZIPL provided details\n of all merchants and break-up of the outstanding amount payable to\n them from the funds available in the Escrow/Nodal accounts.14. Respondent no.1 had noted in its order dated 01.02.2023 that\n approximately ₹314.46 crores was available in the Escrow / Nodal\n Account No.017261100000041 with Yes Bank Ltd. and out of the\n aforesaid amount, ZIPL had furnished a breakdown of the amounts due\n to 106 merchants aggregating to ₹244.54 crores. It had not submitted\n any details regarding the persons to whom the balance amount of ₹69.92\n crores was required to be paid. Respondent no.1 noted that out of the\n amount of ₹244.54 crores belonging to 106 merchants, ₹152.25 crores\n pertained to merchants whose bank accounts had been provisionally\n attached. He accordingly allowed release of the said amount, subject to\n the condition that the amounts be paid to the said merchants directly in\n the bank accounts as mentioned in the said impugned order, that is, the\n accounts that had already been attached by the respondents.15. In addition, respondent no.1 directed that before transfer of the\n said amount, ZIPL and Yes Bank Ltd. would submit an affidavit to the\n Deputy Director of DGGI to the effect that branches of the banks\n maintaining the accounts of the recipients are informed that the bank\n account of the concerned payee is attached and the same is\n acknowledged by the concerned banks. It was further directed that in\n case ZIPL and Yes Bank Ltd. are not willing to inform the recipient\n banks, they shall inform the same to the Deputy Director of DGGI, who\n would then issue a NOC after informing the banks.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 5 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB16. Insofar as the balance amount of ₹92.29 crores is concerned\n (₹244.54 crores - ₹152.25 crores), respondent no.1 noted that it\n pertained to 18 other merchants, some of which were found to be non-\n existent, and bank accounts of some of the merchants were attached but\n the bank account numbers furnished by ZIPL in respect of those\n merchants were different from those that were attached. Respondent\n no.1 held that the amount of ₹28,67,90,503/- pertaining to specified\n merchants would be permitted to be released after their bank accounts\n have been attached. Further, in respect of ₹49,19,44,031/-, respondent\n no.1 noted that the same was required to be remitted to three merchants\n whose details were not shared by ZIPL at the time of search but had\n been provided later by a letter dated 24.11.2022. Respondent no.1\n observed that bona fides of those merchants would require to be verified\n and held that the said amount could not be released before the bona fides\n of those merchants were verified. Insofar as the balance amount of\n ₹75,96,407/- is concerned, the same related to the eleven merchants and\n ZIPL was permitted to release the same.Discussions and conclusion17. The respondents have filed an affidavit raising several allegations\n against ZIPL and seeking to justify their actions of attaching the bank\n accounts of the ZIPL. They claim that information was received\n indicating that ZIPL was indulging in evasion of GST while providing\n an online payment gateway (Aggregator Services) under the trade name\n 'Onion-Pay'. The respondents allege that that ZIPL was supporting\n illegal gambling products such as 'Teen Patti', 'Roulette', 'Ludo',Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 6 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB\n\n\n\n\n 'Matrix 5' and all merchants associated with the payment gateway were\n suspected to be fake and shell companies. Further, they allege that ZIPL\n had created a web of fake gaming merchant entities, which were\n operated and managed by ZIPL. It was claimed that a Chinese national\n named Jian Li was the Director of ZIPL and the mastermind in running\n the entire online gaming / gambling business.18. The respondents also filed sur-rejoinder, inter alia, affirming\n that various new facts have emerged during investigation. They state\n that it was found that the application made by ZIPL to operate a\n payment gateway / payment aggregator has been returned by the RBI\n on 06.01.2023. The RBI had further advised ZIPL to stop the payment\n aggregation activity and directed it to close the Nodal account within\n one hundred and eighty days from 06.01.2023. ZIPL was further\n prohibited from submitting any further application or operating any\n payment system under thePayment & Settlement Systems Act, 2007for the period of one year. It is also alleged that certain contraventions\n ofForeign Exchange Management Act, 1999(FEMA) were observed\n and the RBI has issued a compounding order on 24.06.2022. It was also\n alleged that ZIPL was operating the Nodal / Escrow accounts and\n providing payment aggregator / payment gateway services in violation\n of regulatory requirements stipulated by the RBI.19. The scope of the present proceedings is confined to determining\n whether the impugned orders are in accordance withSection 83of the\n CGST Act. Thus, we are not required to examine the action taken by\n the RBI. Obviously, ZIPL will have to comply with the directions issuedSignature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 7 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB\n\n\n\n\n by the RBI, unless the same are set aside by a competent court or\n authority. But the directions issued by the RBI is not the subject matter\n of the present petition.20. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the\n respondents, had submitted that the investigation is underway and that\n ZIPL's bank accounts had been attached in view of the information that\n some of the merchants onboarded on ZIPL's platform were non-\n existent. He also submitted that it was also suspected that money was\n being paid to fake and non-existent merchants operated by Chinese\n nationals, who would then transfer the funds out of India by illegal\n channels. He, however, readily accepted that there was no tangible\n material as yet to form any informed view in this regard. He further\n stated that insofar as ZIPL is concerned, there was no allegation that it\n had not discharged its liability under theCGST Act.21. The allegations, on the basis of which the impugned order\n attaching the petitioner's bank account were passed, center around the\n theme that some of the merchants using ZIPL's platform are fake. Mr\n Singh submitted that registration numbers of some of the merchants had\n also been cancelled.22. ZIPL had provided the details as well as the bank accounts of all\n merchants to whom payments are due from Nodal / Escrow account.\n According to ZIPL, a sum of ₹244.54 crores (out of the sum of ₹314.46\n crores) is required to be paid to 106 separate merchants, and the balance\n amount of ₹69.92 crores belongs to it.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 8 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB23. As stated above, Mr. Harpreet Singh has readily accepted that\n there is neither any demand nor any issue regarding ZIPL's liability\n under theCGST Act. ZIPL's bank accounts were attached mainly for\n attaching the assets of some of the merchants who were using ZIPL's\n platform. The relevant file produced in Court also indicated that the\n respondents had sought to create a lien on ZIPL's account for a sum of\n ₹643 crores on the basis of estimate of the tax liability owed by some\n of the large merchants.24. In view of the aforesaid submission that there is no issue\n regarding the CGST liability of ZIPL, it is apparent that ZIPL's bank\n accounts could not be attached for any amount due and payable to the\n merchants using the ZIPL's platform. The provisions ofSection 83of\n the CGST Act can be invoked for attaching the assets and bank accounts\n of a taxable person or a person specified underSection 122(1A)of the\n CGST Act, if in the opinion of the Commissioner it is necessary to do\n so for the purpose of protecting the interest of government revenue.\n Thus, the bank accounts of ZIPL cannot be attached for securing the\n revenue of another taxable person. It is implicit that the bank accounts\n and assets of only those taxable person or persons specified inSection\n 122(1A)of the CGST Act can be attached who may be liable for\n payment of any government revenue and the Commissioner is of the\n opinion that it is necessary to attach their assets in the interest of\n government revenue. A debt owed by any person to the taxable person,\n whose assets or bank accounts are liable to be attached underSection\n 83of the CGST Act, can be attached being an asset of such a person.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 9 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB\n\n\n\n\n But the bank account of the person owing such debt cannot be subject\n to a provisional attachment order underSection 83of the CGST Act.25. We are also unable to find any basis for the various directions\n issued by respondent no.1 in the impugned order dated 01.02.2023\n requiring ZIPL to obtain NOCs or acknowledgments from the bank\n accounts of the recipient merchants.26. Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for ZIPL,\n submitted that ZIPL had no issue in accepting the respondents'\n condition that the payments to various merchants be made only in the\n specified bank accounts as communicated to the respondents and as\n noted in the impugned order dated 01.02.2023. He also states that ZIPL\n has no cavil in undertaking that the amounts payable to the merchants\n and as recorded in the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 will be paid\n without holding back any amount.27. Mr. Harpreet Singh fairly states that, at this stage, attachment of\n the assets of ZIPL may be lifted subject to the condition that the money\n due to various merchants would be remitted to the specified bank\n accounts as disclosed by ZIPL.28. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to dispose\n of the present petition by setting aside the impugned orders attaching\n ZIPL's bank accounts albeit with the further direction that ZIPL shall\n make payments due to various merchants directly in their respective\n bank accounts as disclosed by ZIPL to the respondents and as recorded\n in the impugned order dated 01.02.2023. Insofar as the remainingSignature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 10 of 112023:DHC:3781-DB\n\n\n\n\n amount of ₹69.92 crores is concerned, ZIPL shall transfer the same to\n its current account.29. The respondents are not precluded from taking any effective\n steps, in accordance with law, in respect of various merchants if they\n are of the opinion that it is necessary to do so in the interest of protecting\n the government revenues.30. It is also clarified that the respondents are not precluded from\n taking any action against ZIPL in accordance with law, if it is found that\n any amount is due and payable by ZIPL. The concerned Commissioner\n is also not precluded from taking protective action, in accordance with\n law, in respect of any liability of ZIPL, if in his opinion the interest of\n protecting the government revenue requires such action.31. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending\n applications are also disposed of.VIBHU BAKHRU, J\n\n\n\n\n AMIT MAHAJAN, J\n MAY 22, 2023\n 'gsr'Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:Dushyant RawalSigning Date:29.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.3428/2023 Page 11 of 11 |
eb374c01-ada6-540c-af5e-0db9cdfd55fe | court_cases | Calcutta High CourtSatya Narayan Agarwalla vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 April, 2022Author:Md. NizamuddinBench:Md. NizamuddinOD - 44\n\n ORDER SHEET\n WPO/2000/2022\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION\n ORIGINAL SIDE\n\n SATYA NARAYAN AGARWALLA\n VS\n UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nBEFORE:\nThe Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDINDate : 20th April, 2022.Appearance:Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv.Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Adv....For the Petitioner\n\n Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv....For the U.O.I.\n\n The Court : Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.\n\n In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice\n\nunderSection 148of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was issued after\n\n31st March, 2021 with supporting documents on the ground that this\n\ncase clearly falls under the newly amended act relating to proceedings\n\nunderSection 147of the Act and under which there is a mandatory\n\nobligation on the part of the assessing officer to issue notice underSection 148Aof the Act before issuing any notice underSection 148of\n\nthe Act and which has admittedly not done by the assessing officer\n\nand the impugned notice underSection 148of the Act has been\n\nissued violation ofSection 148Aof the Act.\n\n Furthermore this case is directly covered by the orders of this\n\nCourt in the case ofBagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited\n\n& Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com\n\n196 (Calcutta) and also in the case ofMonoj Jain vs. Union of Indiareported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 173 (Calcutta).2Considering these facts I hold the impugned notice underSection\n\n148of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. However,\n\nquashing of the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings will not\n\ndebar the assessing officer concerned to issue any fresh notice in\n\nfuture in accordance with law.With the above observations, this Writ Petition being WPO\n\nNo.2000/2022 is disposed of.This writ petition is being entertained subject to payment of cost\n\nof Rs. 5000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee since the\n\nimpugned notice underSection 148of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has\n\nbeen issued on 4th June, 2021 as appears from record and this writ\n\npetition has been filed in April, 2022, that is, almost after nine months\n\nfrom receipt of the impugned notices, without any explanation for\n\nsuch delay in filing this writ petition. Such cost has to be paid by the\n\npetitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within ten days\n\nfrom date and such cost will be utilised for the benefit and welfare of\n\nthe children staying with their parents in the correctional home in\n\nWest Bengal. Receipt of payment is to be produced by the petitioner\n\nbefore this Court.List this matter as "To be Mentioned" on 2nd May, 2022 for\n\ncompliance.Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied\n\nto the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)\n\n\n\nTR/3 |
6d060978-1150-53b2-ae5d-b374c4ec4fd4 | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nState Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\nV K Thakkar vs N B Upadhyay on 11 May, 2023\n Details DD MM YY\n Date of Judgment 11 05 2023\n Date of filing 28 11 2022\n Duration 13 05 -\n\n IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.\n\n First Appeal No.831/2022\n Court No. 1\n\n Thakkar Vasudev Kanaiyalal\n Keval Farm, Karodiya Road,\n Post Bajva, Vadodara. ...Appellant\n\n Vs\n1. Shri N.B.Upadhyay\n Municipal Commissioner\n Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan, Khanderao Market,\n Rajmahal Road,\n Vadodara.\n\n2. Ms. Shalini Agarwal I/C Municipal Commissioner\n Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan, Khanderao Market,\n Rajmahal Road,\n Vadodara.\n\n3. Jitesh Trivedi, Officer\n Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan, Khanderao Market,\n Rajmahal Road,\n Vadodara.\n\n4. Ms. Dipti Verma, Officershri\n Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan, Khanderao Market,\n Rajmahal Road,\n Vadodara.\n\n5. Shri J. N. Singh\n Chief Secretary Government of Gujarat,\n 3rd Floor Block 1,\n New Sachivalay,\n Gandhinagar.\n\n6. Shree Nakhat Pravin Saiyed Madam sir,\n President, C.D.R.F Main\n Consumer Court, Nr. Amitnagar,\n Karelibaug, Vadodara.\n\n7. Shree Jalphaben Saumilkumar Dhebar Madam Sir,\n Member, C.D.R.F. Main,\n Consumer Court, Nr.Amitnagar,\n Karelibaug, Vadodara. ...Respondents\n\nCORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President\n Hon'ble Ms. A.C.Raval, Member\n\nd.i.dabhi A-831-2022 Page 1 of 7\n APPERANCE : Self for the appellant\n Learned Advocate Mr.Bharat T. Majmundar for the respondent\n no.1,3 & 4\n\n\n\n Order by Mr. Justice V.P.Patel, President.\n\n1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 41 of the\n Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short the CP Act), being\n aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order\n dt.05.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Consumer Dispute Redressal\n Commission, Vadodara (Main) (for short CDRC Vadodara) in the\n Consumer Complaint No.725/2019.\n\n2. Heard Mr. Vasudev Thakkar for appellant himself and Learned\n Advocate Mr.Bharat T. Majmundar for the respondent no.1, 3 & 4.\n Though the notice is duly served to respondent no.1,3 & 4, no one\n has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 & 5. Considering facts\n and circumstances of the case, no notices were issued to\n respondent no. 6 & 7.\n\n Order under Challenge:\n 3. The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.\n\n Arguments of the appellant:\n 4. Appellant Mr. Vasudev Thakkar has argued that the impugned\n order was passed by including one of the member Jalpaben S.\n Dhebar. She had earlier vide order dt. 14/02/2022 declared that\n she will not entertain this matter, in spite of this the impugned\n order was passed against him. It is further argued that he has\n filed the special CA no. 21924 Of 2019 before Hon'ble High Court\n aginst Jalpaben S. Dhebar, Member CDRC. It is further\n submitted that order passed by the Ld. CDRC with bias and\n prejudice, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. He requested\n to set aside and remand the case.\n\nd.i.dabhi A-831-2022 Page 2 of 7\n Merits of the case:\n 5. The appellant has taken one of the ground in this appeal,\n which reads as under.\n " ૧૧. લડોદયા ની ભેઇન પોયભ ના ભેમ્ફય શ્રી જલ્ાફેન સૌભીરકુભાય ઢેફય તથા\n અન્મો સાભે અને નાભદાય ગુજયાત હાઇ કોર્ટ સભક્ષ સ્ેશળમર સીલીર એપ્રીકેળન\n નંફય ૨૧૯૨૪ ઓક્ ૨૦૧૯ દાખર કયે ર છે , જે હાર શનણટમાશધન ેનન્ડિંગ હોલાનુ\n કાયણ દળાટલીને લડોદયા ની ભેઇન પોયભ ના ભેમ્ફય જલ્ાફેન સૌશભરકુભાય ઢેફય\n દ્વાયા તાયીખ ૧૪.૨.૨૦૨૨ ના યોજ એક રેખીત હુકભ કયી અભને જણાલલાભાં\n આલેર કે, અભે તેભની સાભે હાઇકોર્ટ ભાં ીર્ીળન દાખર કયે ર હોઇ , તેઓ અભાયી\n ેનન્ડિંગ એક ણ પયીમાદ ના હીમયીંગ ભાં બાગ રઇ ળકે નહીં. તેભના તે આદે ળ\n ને તેઓ ો તે યીવ્યુ કયી ળકે નહી , તેભ છતાં , તેભના જ તે આદે ળ ને અલગણી\n લડોદયા ની ભેઇન પોયભ ના ભેમ્ફય શ્રી જલ્ાફેન સૌભીરકુભાય ઢેફય ઘ્લાયા\n અભાયી તભાભ કુર આઠ પરયમાદીઓના હીમયીંગ ભાં બાગ રેલાભાં આલેર છે, અને\n ભેમ્ફય શ્રી જલ્ાફેન સીભીરકુભાય ઢેફય ઘ્લાયા અભાયી ઉય ધ્લેળબાલ યાખી ,\n ભેરાપાઇડ ઇન્ર્ેન્ળન સાથે , અભને આશથિક તથા ભાનશળક નુકળન હોંચાડલા ના\n ભરીન આળમ થી તે આઠ પયીઆદો ૈરક છ પયીઆદો ને ડીસભીસ કયલા ના અમુક\n જજભેન્ર્ ભાં સહી ણ કયે ર છે . આ તેભણે ણ બાયત દે ળ ના સંશલધાન ની\n ભમાટદા ભાં ફનેર કામદાઓ નો બંગ કયી દે ળ ના સંશલધાન નો શતયસ્કાય કયે ર છે .\n\n ૧૩. નાભદાય ગુજયાત હાઇ કોર્ટ ાંસે અભે અન્મ સંરગ્ન કેળ ભાં ભાંગેર\n ડામયે કળન ની દાદ અન્લમે નાભદાય ગુજયાત હાઇ કોર્ટ ધ્લાયા તે ડામયે કળન ના\n હચયીંગ ભાર્ે ઇસ્યુ કયામેર તાયીખ ૩/૮/૨૨ ની નોર્ીળ લડોદયા ની ભેઇન પોયભ\n ના પ્રમુખ ને તાયીખ ૫/૮/૨૨ ના યોજ ભી ગમા છતાં, તે પ્રસ્થાશત સીધ્ધાંત ને\n અનુસયલાના ફદરે હાઇ કોર્ટ ના ડામયે કળન ઇસ્યુ થામ તે હેરાજ લડોદયા ની\n ભેઇન પોયભ ના પ્રમુખ ધ્લાયા પયીઆદ નંફય ૭૨૯ ઓપ ૨૦૧૬ ને જ્યુયીડીકળન\n નુ કાયણ ફતાલી ને ભેયીર્ ભાં ગમા લગય તાયીખ ૦૫/૦૯/૨૨ ના યોજ પયીઆદ\n યદ્દ કયી દે લાભાં આલેર છે . (એનેક્ષય-3)"\n\n 6. The appellant has produced copy of order dt. 25/03/2021\n passed by the president CDRC Vadodara and member (Ms.\n Jalpaben S. Dhebar) in CC No. 299/2017. On perusing the same\n it is stated in order as under.\n "The present matter along with the other seven matters filed by the\n Com plainant are transferred from the file of Consumer Dispute\n Redressal Commission (Additional), Vadodara to the file of\n Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (Main), Vadodara as per\n order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission in T.A. Nos. 6/2021\n to 13/2021 and the same is conveyed to this 'Commission vide\n Hon'ble State Commission letter No. CDRC/Judi/3123/2021, dated\n 17/12/2021. Before starting the online hearing on merits on\n 7/02/2022, it has come to the notice of the President of this\n\nd.i.dabhi A-831-2022 Page 3 of 7\n Commission that the complainant has filed one Spl.C.A. No.\n 40356/2019 before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court for reviewing\n Judicial appointment of my predecessor President and two members\n of this Commission, and therefore, it was suggested to produce the\n status report and copy of the said Writ Petition and the complainant\n had agreed to produce the same, if it is ordered by this Commission.\n We see no need to compel the complainant for the same. The said\n fact of Writ Petition is declared by the complainant in writing on\n 30/01/2020 wherein he himself has prayed not to proceed in the\n mater due to filing of Writ Petition by him. It should be noted that out\n of above two members, one member is still working with this Main\n Commission at Vadodara and post of one member is vacant here\n and so such only one Member against whom the writ is pending\n cannot take part in the hearing of the above application and so we\n have two options either to recommend to transfer the matters of\n complainant to any other Commission or to keep the matter sine die\n till the new member is appointed in the Main Commission of\n Vadodara. Hence, the matter is adjourned."\n\n 7. The impugned order is passed by the president and 2\n members, out of the same Member Ms. Jalpa S. Dhebar has\n signed the impugned order.\n\n 8. The appellant has produced the copy of the title sheet of\n special CA No. 21924/2019, wherein Jalpa S. Dhebar is shown\n as respondent no.3.\n\n 9. We have consider the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble\n Supreme Court in below mentioned cases:\n\n 9.1 P.K. Ghosh, I.A.S. And Ant vs J.G. Rajput on 10 November, 1995,\n 1987 AIR 513, 1995 SCC (6)744.:\n\n A basic postulate of the rule of law is that 'justice should not only be\n done but it must also be seen to be done. If there be a basis which\n cannot be treated as unreasonable for a litigant to expect that his\n matter should not be heard by a particular judge and there is no\n compelling necessity, such as the absence of an alternative, it is\n appropriate that the learned judge should recuse himself from the\n Bench hearing that mater. This step is required to be taken by the\n learned judge not because he is likely to be influenced in any\n manner in dong justice in the cause, but because his hearing the\n matter is likely to give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind\n of the litigant that the mind of the learned judge, may be\n subconsciously, has been influenced by some extraneous factor in\n making the decision, particularly if it happens to be in favour of the\n opposite party. Credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery\n system and the reasonable Perception of the affected parties are\n relevant considerations to ensure the continuance of public\n confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary. This is\n necessary not only for doing justice but also for ensuring that justice\n is seen to be done.\n\n 9.2 Ranjit Thakur vs Union of India and Ors on 15 October,1987\nd.i.dabhi A-831-2022 Page 4 of 7\n 1987 AIR 2386, 1988 SCR (1)512:\n\n It is the essence of a judgment that it is made after due observance\n of the judicial process; that the E Court or Tribunal passing it\n observes, at least the minimal requirements of natural justice, is\n composed of impartial persons acting fairly and without bias and in\n good faith. A judgment which is the result of bias or want of\n impartiality is a nullity and the trial "coram non-judice". (See\n Vassiliadas v. Vassiliades-AIR 1945 PC 38).\n\n 7. As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the\n reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the\n party. The proper approach for the judge is not to look at his own\n mind and ask himself, however, honestly. "Am I biased? "but to look\n at the mind of the party before him.\n\n Lord Esher in Allinson v. General Council of Medical Education and\n Registration, I 1894] 1 Q.B. 750 at 758 said:\n\n "The question is not, whether in fact he was or was not biased. The\n Court cannot inquire into that ........... In the administration of justice,\n whether by a recognised legal court or by persons who, although not\n a legal public court, are acting in a similar capacity, public policy\n requires that, in order that there should be no doubt about the purity\n of the administration any person who is to A take part in it should\n not be in such a position that he might be suspected of being\n biased."\n\n 10. Considering the contents para 11 and 13 of the appeal memo,\n the allegations are made against the President and Member Ms.\n Jalpaben S. Dhebar by the appellant. At present the president\n (respondent no.3) and Member (respondent no.4) are joined as party\n in this appeal and they are working in the Consumer Disputes\n Redressal Commission Vadodara (Main). If case is conducted after\n remand the prejudice will cause to the complainant. Therefore, the\n consumer complaint no. 725/2019 is required to be transfer in\n another Consumer Disputes Redressal commission. For that\n necessary order will be passed in the final order.\n\n 11. We have considered the said ground stated in memo of appeal;\n reasons stated in impugned judgment, the documentary evidence\n produced on record, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in\n above referred cases, arguments of the appellant, facts and\n circumstances of the case.\n We are of the opinion that record shows that the prejudice\n cause to the appellant/ original complainant. The basic principle of\n rule of law is justice should not only be done but it should also be\nd.i.dabhi A-831-2022 Page 5 of 7\n seen to be done. This principle is applicable in this case. Therefore,\n the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is required to be set\n aside and the case is required to be remanded back. In the interest\n of justice following order is passed.\n\n ORDER\n 1. The Appeal No. 831 of 2022 is hereby partly allowed.\n\n 2. The judgment and order dt. 05.09.2022 passed by the Ld.\n District Commission, Vadodara (Main) (for short Ld. District\n Commission) in the Consumer Complaint No. 725/2019 is\n hereby quash and set aside.\n\n 3. The matter is remanded back for taking fresh decision. The\n Ld. District Commission is directed and ordered to re-admit\n the Consumer Complaint No. 725/2019 under its original\n number and status in the register of Consumer Complaint.\n\n 4. Thereafter, the consumer complaint no. 725/2019 is transfer\n to the Ld. Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Vadodara\n (Additional). The Ld. Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission\n Vadodara (Additional) is directed and ordered to proceed to\n determine the complaint; and the evidence (if any) recorded\n during the original trial shall, subject to all just expectations,\n be evidence during the trial of Consumer Complaint after\n remand.\n\n 5. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on\n merits of the case, the CDRC Vadodara (Additional) shall\n decide the complaint according to law within 2 months from\n the date of transfer of consumer complaint.\n\n 6. No order as to cost.\n\n 7. Registry is directed to send certified copy of this judgment to\n the parties free of cost. Registry is further directed to send\n copy of this judgment to the District Commission Vadodara\n\n\nd.i.dabhi A-831-2022 Page 6 of 7\n (main) and to the District Commission Vadodara (Additional)\n through E-mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.\n\n Pronounced in open court today on 11/05/2023.\n\n [Ms. A.C. Raval] [Justice Mr. V.P.Patel]\n Member President\n\n\n\n\nd.i.dabhi A-831-2022 Page 7 of 7 |
eaa232c5-5a46-5eec-b85c-fd3f8a16ebc3 | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nOrissa High Court\nThis Matter Is Taken Up By Video ... vs Unknown on 1 February, 2021 W.P.(C) No.3461 of 2021\n\n\n\n\n This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.\n02. 01.02.2021\n Heard Mr. S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner\n and Mr. P.K.Muduli, learned Addl. Government Advocate,\n for the State-Opposite Parties.\n\n 2. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government\n Advocate for the State accepts notice for Opposite Party\n Nos.1 to 3.\n\n 3. Mr. S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits\n that the present writ petition being identical to W.P.(C)\n No.5933 of 2020, the same may be disposed of in terms of\n the order dated 18.02.2020, passed in W.P.(C) No.5933 of\n 2020.\n\n 4. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government\n Advocate for the State-opposite parties does not dispute the\n said position.\n\n 5. By way of this writ petition, Petitioner has challenged\n the action of the Opposite Parties in not reimbursing the\n differential tax amount arising out of change in tax regime\n from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Service Tax\n (GST) with effect from 01.07.2017.\n\n 6. Batch of writ petitions are being filed on this issue. The\n main issue involved in such matters is that the difficulty\n 2\n\n\n\n\nfaced by the contractors due to change in the regime\nregarding works contract under GST. The grievance of the\nPetitioner is that in view of the introduction of the GST,\nPetitioner is required to pay tax which was not envisaged\nwhile entering into the agreement.\n\n7. In that view of the matter, Petitioner shall make a\ncomprehensive representation before the appropriate\nauthority within two weeks from today ventilating the\ngrievance. If such a representation is filed, the authority will\nconsider and dispose of the same, in the light of the\naforesaid revised guidelines dated 10.12.2018 issued by the\nFinance Department, Government of Odisha, as\nexpeditiously as possible, preferably by 15.03.2021.\n\n8. If the Petitioner(s) will be aggrieved by the decision of\nthe authority, it will be open for the Petitioner(s) to\nchallenge the same.\n\n9. No coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner\ntill 15.03.2021.\n\n10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.\n\n11. As there are certain restrictions due to pandemic\nCOVID-19 situation, learned counsel for the parties may\nutilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's\nwebsite or print out thereof at par with certified copy in\n 3\n\n\n\n\n the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated\n 25th March, 2020.\n\n (Dr. S. Muralidhar)\n Chief Justice\n\n\n (S. Pujahari )\n Judge\n\n\n\n\nR.K.Sethi/\nS.K.Barik |
ea4241ae-2436-54dd-a804-c7fadf6e820c | court_cases | Chattisgarh High CourtRamsingh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 November, 2021Author:Rajani DubeyBench:Rajani Dubey1\n\n NAFR\n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n\n MCRC No. 8147 of 2021\n Ramsingh, S/o Babulal Gond, Aged About 36 Years, R/o-\n Baloda, Police Station - Gidhouri, District - Balodabazar-\n Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.\n ---- Applicant\n Versus\n State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station\n Gidhouri - Tundra, District Balodabazar Bhatapara\n Chhattisgarh.\n ---- RespondentFor Applicant : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate.\nFor Respondent : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, P.L.\n\n\n Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey\n Order on Board\n01/11/2021\n\n\n The accused/applicant has moved this first bail\n\n application underSection 439of the Code of Criminal\n\n Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in\n\n connection with Crime No. 131/2021 registered at Police\n\n Station - Gidhouri - Tundra, District- Balodabazar-\n\n Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable underSection 34 (2)of the C.G. Excise Act. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 02.10.2021, on\n\n the basis of secret information, police personnel\n\n conducted the raid and seized total 40 bulk liters of illicit\n\n liquor from the custody of applicant and thereby\n\n committed the offence.2 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the\n\n applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in\n\n question. She further submits that the applicant is in\n\n custody since 02.10.2021 and the trial is likely to take\n\n some time for its final disposal, he may be released on\n\n bail. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the\n\n bail application. Taking into consideration the condition incorporated inSection 59-A(ii)of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915, and bearing\n\n in mind the principles of law laid down inBanti Singh\n\n v. State of Chhattisgarh (M.Cr.C. No.6846of 2014),\n\n decided on 05.01.2015), if the facts of present case are\n\n examined, it is apparent that only 40 bulk liters of illicit\n\n liquor has been seized from him which is more than\n\n prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact\n\n that the applicant is in custody since 02.10.2021, trial is\n\n likely to take some more time and further taking into\n\n account the nature and gravity of offence and plea\n\n raised by the applicant that he has falsely been\n\n implicated in case, I am of the opinion that present is the\n\n fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on\n\n regular bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that\n\n on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-,3with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of\n\n the concerned Court for his appearance as and when\n\n directed, the applicant shall be released on the following\n\n conditions: That, the applicant shall furnish a specific,\n undertaking that while on bail, he shall not commit\n any excise offence, otherwise bail granted to him\n shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate\n the prosecution during trial.\n That, the accused/applicant shall make himself\n available for interrogation before the concerned\n Investigating Officer as and when required and the\n accused/applicant shall not, directly or indirectly,\n make any inducement, threat or promise to any\n person acquainted with the facts of the case so as\n to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to\n the Court or to any police officer.\n That, the accused/applicant shall not act, in any\n manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and\n expeditious trial.Sd/-(Rajani Dubey)\n Judge\n\n\n\n\nR/- |
946b4fb2-5107-5f6b-b3c6-fd5473c69e49 | court_cases | Patna High CourtJitendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 8 June, 2021Author:S. KumarBench:Chief Justice,S. KumarIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6885 of 2021\n\n ======================================================\n Jitendra Yadav S/o Shivshankar Yadav R/o Village- Dhadhwa Bhawanipur,\n\n P.s.- Navalpur, District- West Champaran\n\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n\n Versus\n\n\n1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, patna\n2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah\n3. The Superintendent of Excise Department, West Champaran, Bettiah\n4. The Officer in Charge, Chautarwa, Police Station, West Champaran\n\n ... ... Respondent/s\n\n ======================================================\n Appearance :\n\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate\n\n For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7\n\n ======================================================\n\n CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n and\n HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR\n ORAL JUDGMENT\n (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)\n\n =====================================================\n\n (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon'ble the Chief\n Justice/Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their\n residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the Staffs joined\n the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their\n residences/offices.)\n\n Date : 08-06-2021\n\n Learned counsel for the parties desire the matter be\n\n taken up today.\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-2021\n 2/24\n\n\n\n\n Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned\n\n counsel for the State.\n\n Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -\n\n\n "For issuance of appropriate writ commanding\n the respondent authorities to release the Hero\n Glamour Motorcycle bearing Registration\n No.BR22AM8599, Chasis No.\n MBLHAWO82KHGB0302 and Engine No.\n HA10AGKHG18649 of the petitioner which has\n been seized by the respondent police\n officials of Chautarwa (Bathwariya) P.S. case\n No11/2021, registered for the offences U/s 30(a)\n ofBihar Prohibition and Excise Act, pending in\n the court of learned Special Judge Excise, Bettiah,\n West Champaran. The vehicle of the petitioner is\n lying on the police station premises."\n\n\n\n\n Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the\n\n petition be disposed of in terms of order dated 9th January, 2020\n\n passed in CWJC No. 20598 of 2019 titled as Md. Shaukat Ali\n\n Vs. The State of Bihar and subsequent order dated 14th January,\n\n 2020 passed in CWJC No.17165 of 2019 titled as Umesh Sah\n\n Versus the State of Bihar & Ors. and order dated 29.01.2020\n\n passed in CWJC No.2050 of 2020 titled as Bunilal Sah @\n\n Munilal Sah.\n\n Learned counsel for the respondents has no\n\n objection to the same.The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-2021\n 3/24\n\n\n\n\n (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibits the manufacture,\n\n storage, distribution, transportation, possession, sale, purchase\n\n and consumption of any intoxicant or liquor, unless so allowed\n\n in terms of the Act. (Section 13).\n\n In addition to the penalty imposed for committing\n\n such an offence,Section 56of the Act lays down the procedure\n\n for confiscation of "things" used for in the commission of such\n\n an offence. The said Section reads as under:\n\n "56. Things liable for confiscation.-\n Whenever an offence has been committed, which\n is punishable under this Act, following things shall\n be liable to confiscation, namely-\n (a) Any intoxicant, liquor, material, still, utensil,\n implement, apparatus in respect of or by means\n of which such offence has been committed;\n (b) any intoxicant or liquor unlawfully imported,\n transported, manufactured, sold or brought along\n with or in addition to, any intoxicant, liable to\n confiscation under clause (a);\n (c) any receptacle, package, or covering in which\n anything liable to confiscation under clause (a)\n or clause (b), is found, and the other contents, if\n any, of such receptacle, package or covering;\n (d) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other\n conveyance used for carrying the same.\n (e) Any premises or part thereof that may have\n been used for storing or manufacturing any\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-2021\n 4/24\n\n\n\n\n liquor or intoxicant or for committing any other\n offence under this Act.\n Explanation.- The word "premises" include\n the immovable structure, all moveable items within\n the structure and the land on which the premises is\n situated."\n\n\n Undersection 58power to issue an order of\n\n confiscation vests with the District Collector/Authorized officer,\n\n who upon receipt of the report of the seizing officer detaining\n\n such property ("things") is required to pass an order.\n\n This Court has been flooded with several petitions\n\n solely on account of non-initiation of such proceedings of\n\n confiscation or passing of illegal orders with respect thereto.\n\n Also, on account of lack of parties pursing the remedies so\n\n provided under the Act.\n\n Consequently, the court was faced with the\n\n following fact situations:- (a) where despite seizure, no\n\n proceedings for confiscation underSection 58were initiated; (ii)\n\n where such proceedings were initiated but not concluded within\n\n a reasonable time; (c) the parties after obtaining interim relief\n\n for release of "things" under orders passed in different set of\n\n writ petitions, did not participate in the confiscatory\n\n proceedings; (d) where the order of confiscation was neither\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-2021\n 5/24\n\n\n\n\n communicated nor the parties made aware of such fact, thus\n\n precluding them from filing appeal underSection 92and\n\n Revision underSection 93of the Act; (e) proceedings initiated\n\n underSection 92/93were not concluded within a reasonable\n\n time either on account of inaction on the part of the authority(s)\n\n or on account of non-cooperation of the private parties, be it for\n\n whatever reason.\n\n Resultantly, this Court from time to time has been\n\n passing several orders.\n\n In CWJC No.3245 of 2017 titled as Manish\n\n Kumar Chaudhary versus the State of Bihar & Ors., this\n\n Court vide order dated 18.01.20202 issued following directions:\n\n "As such, as mutually prayed for, the\n present writ petition is being disposed of on the\n following mutually agreed terms:-\n\n (a) Interim order dated 07.03.2017 passed in the\n instant writ petition, directing release of the\n property (vehicle/land/house/shop etc.) shall\n continue to remain in operation till such time\n proceedings up to the stage of initiation of\n confiscatory proceedings and its culmination\n as also filing and culmination of the\n proceedings in the appeal, as the case may\n be. This, however, would be subject to the\n petitioner(s) fully cooperating and not\n transferring/alienating the property to any\n person or creating third party rights. It goes\n without saying that the property shall be\n maintained and retained in its original\n condition and not destroyed in any manner or\n its character changed.\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-2021\n 6/24\n\n\n\n\n (b) Wherever proceedings for confiscation have\n not started, the Appropriate Authority\n constituted under the Act, shall positively\n initiate the same within a period of four\n weeks from today. In any event, petitioner\n undertakes to appear in the office of the\n concerned appropriate authority/the\n concerned District Magistrate, on the 10th of\n February, 2020 and apprise him of the\n passing of the order. The said Officer shall\n forthwith, and not later than four weeks from\n today, initiate the proceedings and after\n compliance of principles of natural justice,\n take a decision thereupon within a period of\n two months.\n (c) In the event of the authority arriving at the\n conclusion, directing confiscation of the\n property, the petitioner shall positively file\n the appeal within the statutory period as\n envisaged underSection 92of the Bihar\n Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and the\n appellate authority shall positively decide the\n same within a period of two months\n thereafter.\n (d) Wherever confiscatory proceedings already\n stand concluded and if the petitioner so\n desires, within four weeks from today or\n within the statutory period of limitation, as\n the case may be, positively file an appeal,\n which shall be adjudicated on its own merit.\n The issue of limitation shall not be raised by\n the State or come in the petitioner's way of\n decision on merits. The said proceedings\n shall positively be concluded within a period\n of two months from the date of filing.\n (e) Petitioner undertakes to fully cooperate in all\n such proceedings (confiscatory, Appeal, etc.)\n and shall not take any unnecessary\n adjournment.\n (f) Where appeal already stands filed, petitioner\n shall appear before the said Authority on the\n 20th February, 2020 and apprise him of the\n passing of the order. The Appellate Authority\n shall positively decide the same within a\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-2021\n 7/24\n\n\n\n\n period of two months thereafter.\n (g) With the decision in the appeal, it shall be\n open for either of the parties to take recourse\n to such remedies as are available in\n accordance with law, including approaching\n this Court, on the same and subsequent cause\n of action.\n (h) If the petitioner fails to cooperate, does not\n join, or makes an endeavour of\n procrastination, in any one of the\n proceedings referred to supra, it shall be\n open for the authority to take a decision with\n regard to the property (vehicle/house/land\n etc.), including taking back possession and\n putting it on sale in terms of the Act, with the\n interim order deemed to have been vacated.\n (i) If the appellant chooses not to prefer an\n appeal within the said statutory period or as\n directed herein, it shall be open for the\n authority to take a decision with regard to the\n property, including taking back possession\n and putting it on sale in terms of the Act and\n the interim order passed in the instant\n petition shall be deemed to have been\n vacated.\n (j) With the outcome of the Special Leave\n Petition (C) No.29749 of 2016, titled as State\n of Bihar & Ors. etc. Vs. Confederation of\n Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies &\n Anr., parties, including the petitioner would\n be at liberty to take recourse to such\n remedies as are permissible in law."\n\n\n In CWJC No.20598 of 2019 titled as Md.\n\n Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. this Court vide\n\n order dated 09.01.2020 issued the following directions: -\n\n "Without adjudicating the petitioner's petition\n on merits, we are of the considered view that interest of\n justice would be best met, if the petition is disposed of in\n the following terms:-\n (a) Since the vehicle in question stands\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-2021\n 8/24\n\n\n\n\n seized in relation to the FIR which stood registered\n long ago, in case confiscation proceeding has not been\n initiated, it must be initiated within a period of 15 days\n from today and that confiscation proceeding stands\n initiated, we direct the appropriate authority under the\n Act to forthwith ensure that such proceedings be\n concluded not later than 30 days.\n (b) The petitioner undertakes to make\n himself available in the office of the concerned\n appropriate authority empowered underSection 58of\n the Act i.e. District Collector, in his/her office on\n 24.01.2020at 10:30 A.M.(c) We further direct the appropriate\n authority to positively conclude the confiscation\n proceeding within next thirty days on appearance of the\n petitioner. If for whatever reason, such proceeding\n cannot be concluded, in that event it shall be open for\n the authority to take such measures, as are permissible\n in law, for release of the vehicle in question by way of\n interim measure, on such terms as may be deemed\n appropriate, considering the attending facts and\n circumstances of the case.(d) If eventually, the appropriate authority\n arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to\n be confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek\n damages in accordance with law and have appropriate\n proceedings initiated against the erring\n officials/officers.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that\n the certified copy of the order shall be made available to\n the concerned District Collector on the date so fixed.For future guidance, where parties have not\n approached this Court, we issue the following direction:-The expression "reasonable delay" used in\n Section 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered\n view, necessarily has to be within a reasonable time\n and with dispatch, which period, in our considered\n view, three months time is sufficient enough for any\n authority to adjudicate any issue, more so, when we are\n dealing with confiscatory proceedings."These directions were reiterated in CWJC\n\n No.17165 of 2019 titled as Umesh Sah Versus The State of\n\n Bihar & Ors. by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2020.\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-20219/24Since the respondents had failed to comply with\n\n the several orders passed by this court, in CWJC No.2050 of\n\n 2020 titled asBunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah versus the State of\n\n Bihar & Ors.vide order dated 29.01.2020 by recording the\n\n entire history, directed the State to file an affidavit as to why\n\n proceedings for contempt be not initiated. Such order dated\n\n 29.01.2020 in toto reads as under:-"It is seen that despite our order dated 9 thof\n January, 2020, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 20598 of 2019,\n titled asMd. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors.,\n and the order dated 14thof January, 2020 passed in\n C.W.J.C. No. 17165 of 2019, titled asUmesh Sah Vs. The\n State of Bihar& Ors., the State has not initiated\n proceedings under the provisions of theBihar Prohibition\n and Excise Act, 2016. It is a matter of record that this\n legislation has generated huge litigation. The docket of the\n Court, be it the trial court or the High Court, is now\n choked solely on account of such legislation. In the High\n Court itself, on an average, 400 bail applications are being\n filed every day, some of which are pertaining to the said\n Statute. Position in the lower courts is worse. Before the\n trial courts, i.e. the Sessions Courts, more than 1,75,000\n challans stand filed in relation to the said Statute. Before\n this Court, on an average, more than 5000 writ petitions\n are being filed annually for release of vehicles/properties\n seized under the said Act. It has been the continued\n practice of this Court, since the year 2017, that in the writ\n petitions the vehicles, unless the situation so warrants, are\n normally being released subject to fulfilment of certain\n conditions. This, perhaps, is done only to protect the\n property from being destroyed, for there is no mechanism\n under the Statute or with the administration for protecting\n the property seized in relation to the crime registered\n under the said Statute. Property is left to the vagaries of\n weather, resulting into national loss. This we say for the\n reason that proceedings for confiscation, as envisaged\n underSection 58, were never initiated by the authority,\n which under the Act is the District Magistrate/Collector. It\n is only as a result of inaction on the part of such\n authorities that the owners of the vehicles/properties are\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202110/24constrained to approach this Court for its release.When\n the matter in C.W.J.C. No. 20598 of 2019 (Md. Shaukat\n Ali Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors.) and in 17165 of\n 2019(Umesh Sah Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors.) (supra)\n was taken up for hearing, the State vehemently opposed\n the release of the vehicle and, as such, the following\n orders were passed:(in C.W.J.C. No.20598 of 2019, order dated 9.1.2020)\n "The petition filed on 01.10.2019 is listed for\n hearing for the first time today before the Court.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and\n learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.With the consent of the learned counsel for the\n parties, the writ petition stands disposed of in the\n following terms.The petitioner prays for provisional release of\n Tata Indigo white vehicle bearing Registration No. BR\n 01CX 1796 which has been seized in connection with\n Kotwali P. S. Case No. 721 of 2019, for the offences\n punishable underSections 427/279of the Indian Penal\n Code andSection 37(b)(c)of the Bihar Prohibition and\n Excise Act, 2016.It is continued practice of this Court that in\n cases of drunken driving; no recovery from the vehicle;\n recovery of less than commercial quantity; where ex-facie,\n vehicle is not liable to be confiscated; where there is\n inordinate delay in initiating proceedings for confiscation\n of the vehicle etc., this Court has been directing the State\n to provisionally release vehicle/property, subject to\n initiation/conclusion/finalisation of the confiscatory\n proceedings, as the case may be. Reference can be made\n to the judgments/ orders passed by different co-ordinate\n Benches of this Court, viz:-(i) Judgement dated 22.03.2018 passed\n in CWJC No.5049 of 2018, titled asDiwakar Kumar\n Singh versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(ii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.13162 of 2018 titled asRajesh Kumar\n Pandit @ Rajesh Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar &\n Ors.;(iii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.14242 of 2018 titled asAmar Kumar Vs.\n The State of Bihar & Ors.;(iv) order dated 12.02.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.2437 of 2018 titled asMahendra Manjhi\n Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.;(v) judgement dated 12.02.2018 passed\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202111/24in CWJC No.2470 of 2018 titled asLaxman Das @\n Lakshman Ravidas Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.;(vi) order dated 11.09.2017 passed in\n CWJC No.13158 of 2017 titled as Sanjay Kumar\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(vii) order dated 27.03.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.5528 of 2018 titled asBikash Kumar Vs.\n The State of Bihar & Ors.;(viii) order dated 27.03.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.5528 of 2018 titled as Bikash Kumar\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(ix) order dated 01.05.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.7755 of 2018 titled as Anandi Prasad\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(x) order dated 01.05.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.7644 of 2018 titled as Suraj Ram Versus\n The State of Bihar & Ors.;(xi) order dated 07.08.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.15435 of 2018 titled as Kalesar Chaudhari\n Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.;(xii) judgement dated 18.01.2019\n passed in CWJC No.1215 of 2019 titled as Raushan\n Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Singh Versus The State of\n Bihar & Ors.;(xiii) judgement dated 29.01.2019\n passed in CWJC No.1620 of 2019 titled as Asharfi\n Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Versus the State of Bihar\n & Ors.;(xiv) judgement dated 08.02.2019 passed\n in CWJC No.2380 of 2019 titled as Avinash Kumar\n Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.;(xv) judgement dated 29.01.2019 passed\n in CWJC No.1648 of 2019 titled as Roshan Kumar\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.; and\n (xvi) judgement dated 22.01.2019 passed\n in CWJC No.1314 of 2019 titled as Shanti Devi\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.In fact, in CWJC No. 5049 of 2018 titled as\n Diwakar Kumar Singh Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.\n the Court issued the following directions:-"That apart, in the confiscation proceedings,\n the confiscating authority shall take note of the\n provisions ofSection 56of the Bihar Prohibition and\n Excise Act, 2016 and record a positive finding after\n hearing the petitioner as to whether when the petitioner\n is found or the vehicle is found to be used by a person\n in drunken condition and no liquor is seized from the\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202112/24vehicle or when the vehicle is not used for\n transportation of liquor, whether the provision ofSection 56of the Act will apply. It shall be mandatory\n for the confiscating authority to decide this issue before\n passing any order on the confiscation proceedings. The\n confiscating authority shall consider the provision ofSection 56of the Act, apply his mind and pass a\n speaking order with regard to confiscation initiated.\n Without deciding the aforesaid issue as a preliminary\n issue, further proceedings in the confiscation\n proceedings shall be prohibited.We further request the office of the\n Advocate General to communicate this order to all the\n District Magistrates in the State of Bihar, who would be\n mandated to pass an appropriate order in such cases\n where the vehicle has been confiscated underSection\n 56of the Act only on the allegation that the vehicle was\n being driven in a drunken condition and no liquor was\n seized from the vehicle nor the vehicle used for\n transportation or carriage of liquor. The issue shall be\n decided by each and every District Magistrate before\n proceeding in the confiscation proceedings where the\n allegation is about the vehicle being driven in a\n drunken condition and no liquor was found from the\n possession of the vehicle.It shall be the duty of the Advocate General\n to communicate this order to each and every District\n Magistrate and inform the Registrar General of this\n Court. In spite thereof, if we find that the District\n Magistrates are passing confiscation order without\n addressing this issue first, we may consider initiating\n contempt proceedings against the concerned District\n Magistrate."It is further seen that in CWJC No.15003 of 2019\n titled as Shobha Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. the\n Court observed as under:-"6. On examination of aforesaid fact,\n particularly allegation of the petitioner that in a court\n proceeding before the learned Special Judge, Excise, a\n false information was given, we are of the opinion that\n the court of learned Special Judge, Excise would be\n competent court to pass an appropriate order, in view of\n provisions contained inSection 340of the Code of\n Criminal Procedure, 1973.7. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted\n liberty to file appropriate petition before the learned\n Special Judge, Excise for prosecuting the concerned\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202113/24police official.8. So far as claim of compensation is\n concerned, obviously on going through the material on\n record, since there was no recovery of liquor from the\n vehicle and it was a case, in which, the occupants of the\n vehicle were alleged to be in drunken condition and\n were creating nuisance, though were liable to be\n arrested. In any event, the vehicle was not required to\n be seized, since it was not liable to be confiscated.9. In such situation, we are of the opinion\n that it is a fit case, in which, we may direct to pay\n adequate compensation to the petitioner, being owner\n of the vehicle, to the tune of Rs.75,000/- (seventy five\n thousand), however, Sri Kumar Manish, learned\n Standing Counsel - 5 requests for granting an\n opportunity for obtaining detailed instruction and filing\n counter affidavit in the matter. The request of Sri\n Kumar Manish, S.C.-5 is allowed for filing counter\n affidavit so that final order may be passed.10. It goes without saying that before filing\n counter affidavit, the respondent no. 4/Superintendent\n of Police, Darbhanga may conduct a preliminary\n inquiry regarding the conduct of the police officer, who\n had seized the vehicle of the petitioner and state all\n those facts in its counter affidavit, which must be filed\n by 29th of November, 2019. The affidavit must be\n sworn by the Superintendent of Police himself.11. It further goes without saying that if after\n considering all the facts, including counter affidavit,\n which is proposed to be filed, the Court comes to the\n conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for claim of\n amount of compensation, which has been referred\n hereinabove, the said compensation amount must be\n recovered from the pocket of the police officer, who\n was responsible for such illegal seizure."Despite the same, only before this Court, when\n matters of similar nature came up for hearing on 16 thof\n December, 2019, the learned Advocate General assisted by\n Shri Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel-11, and\n Shri Vivek Prasad, learned Government Pleader-7,\n vehemently opposed the petitions for release of the\n vehicles. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of\n with the directions to the appropriate authorities to\n positively initiate/conclude confiscatory proceedings\n within a period of 30-45 days.Without adjudicating the petitioner's petition\n on merits, we are of the considered view that interest of\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202114/24justice would be best met, if the petition is disposed of in\n the following terms:-(a) Since the vehicle in question stands\n seized in relation to the FIR which stood registered\n long ago, in case confiscation proceeding has not been\n initiated, it must be initiated within a period of 15 days\n from today and that confiscation proceeding stands\n initiated, we direct the appropriate authority under the\n Act to forthwith ensure that such proceedings be\n concluded not later than 30 days.(b) The petitioner undertakes to make\n himself available in the office of the concerned\n appropriate authority empowered under Section 58 of\n the Act i.e. District Collector, in his/her office on\n 24.01.2020 at 10:30 A.M.(c) We further direct the appropriate\n authority to positively conclude the confiscation\n proceeding within next thirty days on appearance of the\n petitioner. If for whatever reason, such proceeding\n cannot be concluded, in that event it shall be open for\n the authority to take such measures, as are permissible\n in law, for release of the vehicle in question by way of\n interim measure, on such terms as may be deemed\n appropriate, considering the attending facts and\n circumstances of the case.(d) If eventually, the appropriate authority\n arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to\n be confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek\n damages in accordance with law and have appropriate\n proceedings initiated against the erring\n officials/officers.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that\n the certified copy of the order shall be made available to\n the concerned District Collector on the date so fixed.For future guidance, where parties have not\n approached this Court, we issue the following direction:-The expression "reasonable delay" used in\n Section 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered\n view, necessarily has to be within a reasonable time\n and with dispatch, which period, in our considered\n view, three months time is sufficient enough for any\n authority to adjudicate any issue, more so, when we are\n dealing with confiscatory proceedings.We clarify that we have not adjudicated the writ\n petition on merits and it shall be open for the parties to\n take all stand in the adjudicatory proceedings and\n wherever parties are aggrieved, it shall be open to them\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202115/24to initiate appropriate proceeding before the appellate\n authority.Learned counsel for the State also undertakes to\n communicate the order to the concerned appropriate\n authority i.e. District Magistrate, empowered underSection 58of the Act."(In C.W.J.C. No.17165 of 2019, order dated 14.1.2020)\n "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and\n learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our\n attention to our earlier order dated 09.01.2020 passed in\n CWJC No. 20598 of 2019, titled asMd. Shaukat Ali Vs.\n The State of Bihar& Ors., and wants the petition to be\n disposed of in terms thereof.With the consent of the learned counsel for the\n parties, the writ petition stands disposed of in the\n following terms.The petitioner prays for provisional release of\n Pick Up Van (Tata Motor/SFC-407 D-Van) bearing\n Registration No. BR-06G-4211 which has been seized in\n connection with Taukauliya P.S.Case No. 709 of 2018 for\n the offences punishable underSections 272,273,34of the\n Indian Penal Code andSections 30(a),38(1),41(1)of the\n Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.It is continued practice of this Court that in\n cases of drunken driving; no recovery from the vehicle;\n recovery of less than commercial quantity; where ex-facie,\n vehicle is not liable to be confiscated; where there is\n inordinate delay in initiating proceedings for confiscation\n of the vehicle etc., this Court has been directing the State\n to provisionally release vehicle/property, subject to\n initiation/conclusion/finalisation of the confiscatory\n proceedings, as the case may be. Reference can be made\n to the judgments/ orders passed by different co-ordinate\n Benches of this Court, viz:-(i) Judgement dated 22.03.2018 passed\n in CWJC No.5049 of 2018, titled asDiwakar Kumar\n Singh versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(ii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.13162 of 2018 titled asRajesh Kumar\n Pandit @ Rajesh Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar &\n Ors.;(iii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.14242 of 2018 titled asAmar Kumar Vs.\n The State of Bihar & Ors.;(iv) order dated 12.02.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.2437 of 2018 titled as Mahendra Manjhi\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202116/24Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.;(v) judgement dated 12.02.2018 passed\n in CWJC No.2470 of 2018 titled asLaxman Das @\n Lakshman Ravidas Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.;(vi) order dated 11.09.2017 passed in\n CWJC No.13158 of 2017 titled as Sanjay Kumar\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(vii) order dated 27.03.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.5528 of 2018 titled asBikash Kumar Vs.\n The State of Bihar & Ors.;(viii) order dated 27.03.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.5528 of 2018 titled as Bikash Kumar\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(ix) order dated 01.05.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.7755 of 2018 titled as Anandi Prasad\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;(x) order dated 01.05.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.7644 of 2018 titled as Suraj Ram Versus\n The State of Bihar & Ors.;(xi) order dated 07.08.2018 passed in\n CWJC No.15435 of 2018 titled as Kalesar Chaudhari\n Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.;(xii) judgement dated 18.01.2019\n passed in CWJC No.1215 of 2019 titled as Raushan\n Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Singh Versus The State of\n Bihar & Ors.;(xiii) judgement dated 29.01.2019\n passed in CWJC No.1620 of 2019 titled as Asharfi\n Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Versus the State of Bihar &\n Ors.;(xiv) judgement dated 08.02.2019 passed\n in CWJC No.2380 of 2019 titled as Avinash Kumar\n Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.;(xv) judgement dated 29.01.2019 passed\n in CWJC No.1648 of 2019 titled as Roshan Kumar\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.; and\n (xvi) judgement dated 22.01.2019 passed\n in CWJC No.1314 of 2019 titled as Shanti Devi\n Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.In fact, in CWJC No. 5049 of 2018 titled as\n Diwakar Kumar Singh Versus the State of Bihar & Ors.\n the Court issued the following directions:-"That apart, in the confiscation proceedings,\n the confiscating authority shall take note of the\n provisions ofSection 56of the Bihar Prohibition and\n Excise Act, 2016 and record a positive finding after\n hearing the petitioner as to whether when the petitioner\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202117/24is found or the vehicle is found to be used by a person\n in drunken condition and no liquor is seized from the\n vehicle or when the vehicle is not used for\n transportation of liquor, whether the provision ofSection 56of the Act will apply. It shall be mandatory\n for the confiscating authority to decide this issue before\n passing any order on the confiscation proceedings. The\n confiscating authority shall consider the provision ofSection 56of the Act, apply his mind and pass a\n speaking order with regard to confiscation initiated.\n Without deciding the aforesaid issue as a preliminary\n issue, further proceedings in the confiscation\n proceedings shall be prohibited.We further request the office of the\n Advocate General to communicate this order to all the\n District Magistrates in the State of Bihar, who would be\n mandated to pass an appropriate order in such cases\n where the vehicle has been confiscated underSection\n 56of the Act only on the allegation that the vehicle was\n being driven in a drunken condition and no liquor was\n seized from the vehicle nor the vehicle used for\n transportation or carriage of liquor. The issue shall be\n decided by each and every District Magistrate before\n proceeding in the confiscation proceedings where the\n allegation is about the vehicle being driven in a\n drunken condition and no liquor was found from the\n possession of the vehicle.It shall be the duty of the Advocate General\n to communicate this order to each and every District\n Magistrate and inform the Registrar General of this\n Court. In spite thereof, if we find that the District\n Magistrates are passing confiscation order without\n addressing this issue first, we may consider initiating\n contempt proceedings against the concerned District\n Magistrate."It is further seen that in CWJC No.15003 of 2019\n titled as Shobha Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.the\n Court observed as under:-"6. On examination of aforesaid fact,\n particularly allegation of the petitioner that in a court\n proceeding before the learned Special Judge, Excise, a\n false information was given, we are of the opinion that\n the court of learned Special Judge, Excise would be\n competent court to pass an appropriate order, in view of\n provisions contained inSection 340of the Code of\n Criminal Procedure, 1973.7. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202118/24liberty to file appropriate petition before the learned\n Special Judge, Excise for prosecuting the concerned\n police official.8. So far as claim of compensation is\n concerned, obviously on going through the material on\n record, since there was no recovery of liquor from the\n vehicle and it was a case, in which, the occupants of the\n vehicle were alleged to be in drunken condition and\n were creating nuisance, though were liable to be\n arrested. In any event, the vehicle was not required to\n be seized, since it was not liable to be confiscated.9. In such situation, we are of the opinion\n that it is a fit case, in which, we may direct to pay\n adequate compensation to the petitioner, being owner\n of the vehicle, to the tune of Rs.75,000/- (seventy five\n thousand), however, Sri Kumar Manish, learned\n Standing Counsel - 5 requests for granting an\n opportunity for obtaining detailed instruction and filing\n counter affidavit in the matter. The request of Sri\n Kumar Manish, S.C.-5 is allowed for filing counter\n affidavit so that final order may be passed.10. It goes without saying that before filing\n counter affidavit, the respondent no. 4/Superintendent\n of Police, Darbhanga may conduct a preliminary\n inquiry regarding the conduct of the police officer, who\n had seized the vehicle of the petitioner and state all\n those facts in its counter affidavit, which must be filed\n by 29th of November, 2019. The affidavit must be\n sworn by the Superintendent of Police himself.11. It further goes without saying that if after\n considering all the facts, including counter affidavit,\n which is proposed to be filed, the Court comes to the\n conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for claim of\n amount of compensation, which has been referred\n hereinabove, the said compensation amount must be\n recovered from the pocket of the police officer, who\n was responsible for such illegal seizure."Despite the same, only before this Court,\n when matters of similar nature came up for hearing on\n 16thof December, 2019, the learned Advocate General\n assisted by Shri Vikash Kumar, learned Standing\n Counsel-11, and Shri Vivek Prasad, learned\n Government Pleader-7, vehemently opposed the\n petitions for release of the vehicles. Consequently, the\n writ petitions were disposed of with the directions to\n the appropriate authorities to positively\n initiate/conclude confiscatory proceedings within a\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202119/24period of 30-45 days.Without adjudicating the petitioner's petition\n on merits, we are of the considered view that interest of\n justice would be best met, if the petition is disposed of\n in the following terms:-(a) Since the vehicle in question stands\n seized in relation to the FIR which stood registered\n long ago, in case confiscation proceeding has not been\n initiated, it must be initiated within a period of 15 days\n from today and that confiscation proceeding stands\n initiated, we direct the appropriate authority under the\n Act to forthwith ensure that such proceedings be\n concluded not later than 30 days.(b) The petitioner undertakes to make\n himself available in the office of the concerned\n appropriate authority empowered under Section 58 of\n the Act i.e. District Collector, in his/her office on\n 04.02.2020 at 10:30 A.M.(c) We further direct the appropriate\n authority to positively conclude the confiscation\n proceeding within next thirty days on appearance of the\n petitioner. If for whatever reason, such proceeding\n cannot be concluded, in that event it shall be open for\n the authority to take such measures, as are permissible\n in law, for release of the vehicle in question by way of\n interim measure, on such terms as may be deemed\n appropriate, considering the attending facts and\n circumstances of the case.(d) If eventually, the appropriate authority\n arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to\n be confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek\n damages in accordance with law and have appropriate\n proceedings initiated against the erring\n officials/officers.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that\n the certified copy of the order shall be made available to\n the concerned District Collector on the date so fixed.For future guidance, where parties have not\n approached this Court, we issue the following direction:-The expression "reasonable delay" used in\n Section 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered\n view, necessarily has to be within a reasonable time and\n with dispatch, which period, in our considered view, three\n months time is sufficient enough for any authority to\n adjudicate any issue, more so, when we are dealing with\n confiscatory proceedings.We clarify that we have not adjudicated the\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202120/24writ petition on merits and it shall be open for the parties\n to take all stand in the adjudicatory proceedings and\n wherever parties are aggrieved, it shall be open to them to\n initiate appropriate proceeding before the appellate\n authority.Learned counsel for the State also undertakes\n to communicate the order to the concerned appropriate\n authority i.e. District Magistrate, empowered underSection 58of the Act."InUmesh Sah(supra), this Court had clarified\n that the expression "reasonable delay" underSection 58of\n Chapter 6 of the Act has to be construed to be 'not more\n than three months'.It is seen that despite our observations, the\n appropriate authorities have not taken any action in\n initiating the proceedings for confiscation of the property\n under the Act. The litigants are, thus, forced to approach\n this Court by way of filing separate petitions.Thus, today we are left with two options; either\n to initiate proceedings for contempt under the provisions\n ofContempt of Courts Actor underArticle 215of the\n Constitution of India or ask the Chief Secretary,\n Government of Bihar, to evolve a mechanism, self serving\n in nature, so as to ensure that the provisions of the Act are\n implemented in letter and spirit, expeditiously, without\n any delay and with reasonable dispatch.Why is it that the owners of the property are\n forced to approach this Court for release of the vehicles or\n property? Is it that there is no mechanism under the Act\n for initiating confiscatory proceedings at the earliest? Is it\n that there is insufficient infrastructure with the State\n Government for ensuring implementation of the\n provisions of the Act?Illustratively, in the weekly list dated\n 27.1.2020, we notice that more than 75 cases stand filed\n and listed despite our order dated 9thof January, 2020. In\n the instant case, seizure is of the year 2019 and no\n proceedings of confiscation have commenced.We are of the considered view that non-implementation of the Act is generally having a very\n serious adverse consequence on the dispensation of\n administration of justice. And, peculiarly, it is only when\n the matter was taken up by the Bench hearing the petition\n bearing C.W.J.C. No. 25266 of 2019 (Vikki Kumar Vs.\n The State of Bihar& Ors.) on 17.12.2019that the State\n vehemently opposed release of the vehicle, contrary to the\n practice adopted hitherto before.Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202121/24Be that as it may, at this point in time, we\n refrain from passing any order under the contempt\n jurisdiction, but direct the Chief Secretary, Government of\n Bihar, to file his personal affidavit dealing with each one\n of the issues highlighted (supra) as also elaborately\n indicating the mechanism which the State has or desires to\n evolve so as to prevent the litigants from directly\n approaching the Court for release of the vehicle and also\n ensuring early completion of the proceedings, be it\n confiscatory in nature or in an appellate jurisdiction, under\n the provisions of theBihar Prohibition and Excise Act,\n 2016.Let an affidavit in that regard be positively\n filed within one week.List this case on 6.2.2020."Further this very Bench in CWJC No.6148 of 2020,\n\n titled as Vishal Kumar Versus the State of Bihar & Anr on\n\n 04.06.2020 issued the following directions: -"In the aforesaid decisions, we have already\n laid down the time-schedule within which all\n proceedings are necessarily required to be\n concluded and the outer limit is three months from\n the date on which this Court has directed the party\n to make himself available before the appropriate\n authority.We clarify that petitioner undertakes to fully\n cooperate in the proceedings and we further clarify\n that in case the authorities are not able to conclude\n the proceedings within the time bound period, the\n vehicle/property shall be allowed to be released on\n such conditions as the appropriate authority may\n deem fit and proper.As such, petition is disposed of making the\n directions contained in the orders referred to supra,\n applicable mutatis mutandis, insofar as applicable\n and possible, to the petitioner's case."Learned counsel states that petition be disposed of\n\n in terms of the various orders passed by this Court, more so the\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202122/24orders referred to supra.It is seen that till date, in large number of cases,\n\n position about conclusion of the proceedings, be it underSection 58,92or 93 remains the same.We further direct that all proceedings underSection 58must positively be initiated/concluded within a\n\n period of ninety days from the date of appearance of the parties.Further, Appeal/Revision, if any, be also decided within a period\n\n of thirty days from the date of initiation, failing which the\n\n "things" (vehicle/property/ etc.) shall be deemed to have been\n\n released in terms of several orders passed by this Court,\n\n reference whereof stands mentioned inBunilal Sah @ Munilal\n\n Sah(supra).Wherever confiscatory proceedings stand\n\n concluded and parties could not file the appeal/revision within\n\n the statutory period of limitation, as already stands directed in\n\n several matters, if they were to initiate such proceedings within\n\n next thirty days, the plea of limitation would not come in their\n\n way of adjudication of such proceedings on merit.Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to\n\n make himself available on 23.06.2021 at 10:30 A.M. before the\n\n appropriate authority which may be in the attending facts, the\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202123/24Collector of the West Champaran, Bettiah District/Appellate or\n\n the Revisional Authority. If the Collector is not himself dealing\n\n with the matter on account of delegation of power or assignment\n\n of work to another officer of his District, he shall fix a date\n\n directing the parties to appear before the said officer, which date\n\n shall be not exceeding one week. Also, he shall inform the said\n\n authority of fixing of such date. We clarify that convenience of\n\n parties, specially during the time of Pandemic Covid-19 is of\n\n prime importance and it shall be open for the authority to hear\n\n the parties with the use of technology, i.e. Video Conferencing\n\n facility etc.\n\n Learned counsel for the State undertakes to\n\n communicate the order to all concerned, including the District\n\n Magistrate and no certified copy of the order shall be required to\n\n be placed on the file of proceedings pending or initiated under\n\n the Act, for such order is available on the official website of the\n\n High Court & can be downloaded and/or verified from there, in\n\n the times of current Pandemic Covid-19.We only hope and expect that the Authorities under\n\n the Act shall take appropriate action at the earliest and in\n\n accordance with law, within the time schedule fixed, failing\n\n which the vehicle/property/things liable for confiscation shall be\n Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2021 dt.08-06-202124/24deemed to have been released without any further reference to\n\n this Court.Liberty reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to\n\n such remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law\n\n if the need so arises subsequently.Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid\n\n observations/directions.(Sanjay Karol, CJ)\n\n\n ( S. Kumar, J)\nAshwini/-AFR/NAFR\nCAV DATE\nUploading Date 10.06.2021\nTransmission Date |
cb7b91b7-54a7-5e72-8089-8cdf4231d1ab | court_cases | Gauhati High CourtHemanta Baishya vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 1 April, 2021Author:Achintya Malla Bujor BaruaBench:Achintya Malla Bujor BaruaPage No.# 1/3\n\nGAHC010130642013\n\n\n\n\n THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT\n (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)\n\n Case No. : WP(C)/3752/2013\n\n HEMANTA BAISHYA\n S/O LATE BHUBAN BAISHYA, R/O HAJO, P.O. and P.S.HAJO, DIST.KAMRUP\n R, ASSAM.\n\n\n\n VERSUS\n\n THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS\n REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF\n ASSAM, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6\n\n 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM\n FINANCE DEPTT.\n DISPUR\n GUWAHATI-781006\n\n 3:THE DIRECTOR\n SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM\n KAHILIPARA\n GUWAHATI-19\n\n 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS\n DIST. CIRCLE RURAL\n AMINGAON\n GUWAHATI 31\n\n 5:THE HEAD MASTER\n HAJO GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL\n P.O. HAJO\n KAMRUP RURA\n\nAdvocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K TALUKDAR\n Page No.# 2/3\n\nAdvocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE\n HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA\n\n O R D E R01.04.2021\n\n Heard Ms. ST Bokth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel\nfor the respondents in the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Assam and\nMr. A Chaliha, learned counsel for the Finance Department. By the order of 27.07.2018, notice\non the respondent No.5 was accepted to be completed. But today when the matter is called\nupon, none appears for the respondent No.5.2. The petitioner claims to be serving as an Assistant Teacher in the Hajo Girls High\nSchool. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the\nHajo Adarsha ME School and as per the order dated 09.05.2003, his service was adjusted in\nthe Hajo Girls High School against a vacant post caused due to transfer of another teacher\nnamely, Sri Mahendra Saikia. In paragraph-3 of the writ petition, an averment is made that\nprior to the petitioner being adjusted in the Hajo Girls High School as per the order dated\n09.05.2003, his service was considered to be irregular appointment and he was subjected to\na scrutiny by the Manoharan Committee. Consequent upon the report of the Manoharan\nCommittee, an order dated 29.04.2005 was passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the\nGovernment of Assam in the Education Department. The order dated 29.04.2005 of the\nCommissioner and Secretary inter-alia conveys the approval of the Government for release of\nthe current monthly salaries of 379 numbers of teachers who were considered to be irregular\nteachers as per the Manoharan Committee report. It is stated that pursuant to the said order\nof 29.04.2005, the petitioner has been receiving his salary till date.3. In the circumstance, the petitioner claims for the arrear salary between the period\n09.05.2003 by which his service was adjusted in the Hajo Girls High School up to the period\nfrom which he had been receiving his salaries as per the order dated 29.04.2005.4. We have no material before us to arrive at any conclusion that the service of the\n Page No.# 3/3\n\npetitioner for the said period between 09.05.2003 to 29.04.2005 was a regular service in any\nmanner, so as to issue a mandamus to the respondents for payment of the salary for the said\nperiod.5. As in the absence of any relevant material on record, we are unable to take a decision\nas to whether the service of the petitioner for the aforesaid period was a regular service or\nnot, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Director of Secondary\nEducation, Assam to verify from the records as to what was the status of the petitioner for\nthe said period. If upon such verification, the Director is of the view that the appointment of\nthe petitioner has to be construed to be a regular appointment under the law for the period\nbetween 09.05.2003 and 29.04.2005, necessary salaries and allowances for the said period\nmay be ordered to be given or else if the Director is of the view that it was not a regular\nservice which did not entail any payment of salary, appropriate order may be passed.6. In order to facilitate the process, the petitioner may submit a detailed representation\nbefore the Director stating as to on what basis the salary for the aforesaid period is being\nclaimed and on the representation being submitted, the Director shall pass a reasoned order\nwithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation.The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.JUDGE\n\n\n\nComparing Assistant |
a91aa3ea-d9f7-5dc6-97e3-9d1e0ac264b1 | court_cases | Jammu & Kashmir High CourtBalbir Singh And Others vs State And Others on 29 November, 2021Sr. No.40\n\n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n AT JAMMU\n OWP No.509/2012\n IA No.99001/2013\n [D-2061/2013]\n IA No.99002/2013\n [D-2062/2013]\n IA No.696/2012\n\nBalbir Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)\n\n Through :- Mr. Mohd. Amir Awan, Advocate.\n V/s\nState and others ....Respondent(s)\n\n Through :- None.\n\nCoram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE\n\n ORDER29.11.20211. By the medium of this petition, the petitioners seeks quashment of\n\norder dated 30.03.2012 passed by J&K Special Tribunal Jammu.2. It is contended that the issue involved is with regard to dispute of the\n\nland under Khasra No.233 measuring 5 Kanal and 19 Marlas situated at village\n\nFloora Nagbani Tehsil and District Jammu and the matter was agitated by the\n\nfather of the respondents before the Collector, Commissioner under the Agrarian\n\nReforms Act. The application filed by the private respondents to seek bringing\n\non record the legal heirs of deceased was rejected. On being aggrieved thereof,\n\nthe applicant respondent had filed a revision before the J&K Special Tribunal,\n\nwherein the Tribunal instead of deciding the revision filed by the respondents\n\nhas considered the main issue and has passed the order impugned herein. Feeling\n\naggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.2 OWP No.509/20123. The precise ground of challenge to the order impugned herein is that\n\nthe learned Tribunal instead of deciding the matter in revision has decided the\n\nmain issue by observing that the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act and\n\nprocess held on this account is thus null and void, legal heirs of the petitioner are\n\nfully entitled to received back their usurped property and for that the Tehsildar\n\nshall pass correct entries and handover land to its rightful owner. It is further\n\nprovided that the respondents have continuously enjoyed benefit of land and\n\nhave got more benefits beyond the amount of debt drawn by the petitioner in lieu\n\nof hand over of agriculture land for their cultivation possession prior to kharif,\n\n1971.4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the writ record.5. A bare perusal of the order impugned itself reveals that the matter\n\nbefore the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu was a revision filed by the applicant\n\nrespondent herein against order dated 30.01.2009 passed by Director Land\n\nRecords with powers of Agrarian Commissioner, Jammu in file No. 245/DLR in\n\ncase titled 'Krishan Dutt Vs Tabiyat Singh' whereby application for bringing on\n\nrecord the LRs of deceased Krishan Dutt has been dismissed, however, the\n\nTribunal instead of deciding the revision petition had decided the entire issue\n\nwhich is against the mandate of provisions of law.6. In the given circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this\n\npetition instead of keeping it as pending consideration by remanding back the\n\nmatter to J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu who shall consider and pass fresh orders\n\nin revision petition filed the applicant/respondent herein. The Tribunal is\n\nrequested to decide the matter expeditiously. The order impugned dated\n\n30.03.2012 is, accordingly, set aside.3 OWP No.509/20127. Disposed of as above.8. Registry to communicate a Copy of this order to J&K Special\n\n Tribunal, Jammu, who on receipt of this order shall issue notice to the parties for\n\n appearance.(Tashi Rabstan)\n Judge\n Jammu:29.11.2021\n Surinder\n\n Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No\n Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No\n\n\n\n\nSURINDER KUMAR\n2021.11.30 14:20\nI attest to the accuracy and\nintegrity of this document |
4f2cc5f1-6695-56cd-a6ae-9a93d8567e9a | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nRajasthan High Court\nGy Fitness Centre vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 January, 2024Bench: Avneesh Jhingan\n HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18864/2023\n\n Gy Fitness Centre\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Satish Khandelwal\n For Respondent(s) :\n\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN\n\n Order\n\n 08/01/2024\n\n Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to\n\n withdraw the misc. application (I.A.No.01/2023) filed for early\n\n listing of the case.\n\n The misc. application is dismissed as withdrawn.\n\n (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J\n\n Monika/629\n\n\n\n\n (Downloaded on 10/01/2024 at 10:32:21 PM)\n\n\n\n\nPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) |
2f4eec66-1215-55f8-a582-350f233e743f | court_cases | Jharkhand High CourtAjit Kumar Keshri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 March, 2022Author:Anil Kumar ChoudharyBench:Anil Kumar ChoudharyIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n A.B.A. No.629 of 2022\n ------Ajit Kumar Keshri .... .... .... Petitioner\n Versus\n 1. The State of Jharkhand2. Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Deoghar Branch, Deoghar\n .... .... .... Opposite Parties\n With\n A.B.A. No.9408 of 2021------1. Somnath Rana2. Devendra Kumar3. Nitish Kumar .... .... .... Petitioners\n Versus1. The State of Jharkhand2. Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Deoghar Branch, Deoghar\n .... .... .... Opposite Parties------CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY\n ------\n For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate\n Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate\n For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P\n For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate\n (In A.B.A. No.9408/2021)\n Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate\n (In A.B.A. No.9408/2021)\n ------\n Order No.04 Dated- 21/03/2022\n Heard the parties.Apprehending their arrest in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case\n No.33 of 2020 instituted underSections 406,420,424,467,468,471,472and120Bof the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of\n privileges of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the\n petitioner of A.B.A. No.629 of 2022 namely Ajit Kumar Keshri is that he has\n taken loan from the bank to purchase cars by way of cheating and forgery but\n he is not repaying the said loan. It is submitted that the allegation against the\n petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the vehicle has never been delivered\n to the said petitioner of A.B.A. No.629 of 2022 namely Ajit Kumar Keshri and\n the bank officials were hand in glove with the dealer of the vehicle. It is lastly\n submitted that the petitioner of A.B.A. No.629 of 2022 namely Ajit Kumar\n Keshri undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to deposit\nRs.2,14,000/- with the informant-Bank without prejudice to his defence in this\ncase subject to final decision of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the\npetitioner of A.B.A. No.629 of 2022 namely Ajit Kumar Keshri be given the\nprivileges of anticipatory bail.So far as petitioners of A.B.A. No.9408 of 2021 are concerned, learned\ncounsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners of\nA.B.A. No.9408 of 2021 is that they have taken loan from the bank to purchase\ncars by way of cheating and committed forgery but they are not repaying the\nsaid loan. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are\nall false but in fact, the petitioners have been cheated and the petitioner No.2\nlodged Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.117 of 2019 and subsequently, to save their\nskin, the bank has instituted this false case. It is further submitted that the\nvehicles have never being delivered to any of the petitioners and the bank\nofficials have hand in glove with the co-accused persons and they have taken\nmoney and the document of the petitioners and the ownership of the said three\ncars are also not in the name of the petitioners rather they are in the name of\nSabita Mishra, Sneha Singh and B.I.T. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws\nthe attention of this Court towards page-44 Annexure-3 of the brief of A.B.A.\nNo.9408 of 2021 which is the copy of the Registered vehicles details and submits\nthat vehicle bearing Chassis No. MA1TA2TDKJ2F12547 has been registered in\nthe name of Birla Institute of Technology and the petitioners have nothing to do\nwith the said Birla Institute of Technology, drawing attention of this Court\ntowards page-47 Annexure-3 of the brief of the said anticipatory bail application\nwhich is the copy of the Registered vehicles details and submits that vehicle\nbearing Engine No. WT J1D19592 has been registered in the name of Sneha\nSingh and the petitioners have nothing to do with the said Sneha Singh and\ndrawing attention of this of this Court towards page-51 Annexure-3 of the brief\nof the said bail anticipatory, which is the copy of the certificate of registration,\nsubmits that vehicle bearing Registration No. JH15T7311 has been registered in\nthe name of Sabita Mishra and the petitioners are no way related with the said\nSabita Mishra. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners of A.B.A. No.9408 of\n2021 undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to deposit\nRs.12,00,000/-, Rs.14,75,000/- and Rs.13,00,000/- respectively with the\ninformant-Bank without prejudice to their defence in this case subject to final\n decision of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners of A.B.A. No.9408\n of 2021 be also given the privileges of anticipatory bail.Learned Spl.P.P appearing for the State being assisted by the learned\n counsel for the opposite party No. 2, oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of\n the petitioners of both these anticipatory bail applications.Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and\n circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail\n to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the\n Court of learned C.J.M., Deoghar within four months from today and in the\n event of their arrest or surrendering, the petitioner of A.B.A. No.629 of 2022\n namely Ajit Kumar Keshri will be enlarged on bail on showing proof of deposit\n of Rs.2,14,000/- with the informant-Bank, petitioners of A.B.A. No.9408 of 2021\n will be enlarged on bail on showing proof of deposit of Rs.12,00,000/-,\n Rs.14,75,000/- and Rs.13,00,000/- respectively with the informant-Bank and all\n of them on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each\n with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M.,\n Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.33 of 2020 with the\n condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and\n appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and\n furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an\n undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the\n pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down underSection\n 438(2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In case the petitioner of A.B.A. No.629 of 2022 namely Ajit Kumar Keshri\n deposits Rs.2,14,000/- with the informant-Bank and the petitioners of A.B.A.\n No.9408 of 2021 deposit Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.14,75,000/- and Rs.13,00,000/-\n respectively with the informant-Bank, learned court below will pass an\n appropriate order regarding the same at the time of conclusion of trial.(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)\nAnimesh/ |
3be08a82-af0d-5528-8e26-22a4ce7d05c5 | court_cases | Himachal Pradesh High CourtKaram Singh vs State Of H.P on 11 October, 2023Bench: Mamidanna Satya Rao, Jyotsna Rewal DuaIN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n SHIMLA\n Cr.M.P.(M) No.2153/2023\n Decided on: 11.10.2023\n\n\n\n\n .Karam Singh ......Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n State of H.P. ......Respondent..........................................................................................Coram\n Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.Whether approved for reporting?1\n For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with\n Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.For the respondent :r to Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional\n Advocate General with Mr. Arsh\n Rattan & Mr. Sidharth Jalta,\n Deputy Advocates General.\n\n ASI Vinod Kumar, present in\n person.\n\n Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JThe petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 348/2019,\n\n dated 19.12.2019, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs\n\n\n\n\n andPsychotropic Substances Act(in short 'NDPS Act') at Police\n\n\n\n\n\n Station, Sadar Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. The petitioner is\n\n\n\n\n\n accused of possessing 8.212 kgs of cannabis in the said FIR.2. Respondent has filed the status report and also\n\n produced the record.3. According to the respondent, on 19.12.2019, a police\n\n party was on routine patrol duty within the area of its jurisdiction; At\n\n around 3.25 P.M., the police personnel noticed a pedestrian carrying a1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS2backpack; He seemingly appeared perplexed; On seeing the police\n\n party, he retraced his steps & started going backwards at fast pace;.Getting suspicious, the police personnel nabbed him; Independent\n\n\n\n\n\n witnesses were associated; Search of the backpack held by that\n\n person (bail petitioner) was carried out as per law; The search\n\n\n\n\n\n resulted in recovery of 8.212 kgs of cannabis; Consequently, the FIR\n\n in question was registered and the petitioner was arrested on\n\n\n\n\n\n 19.12.2019. On completion of investigation, a police report underSection 173of the Criminal Procedure Code was presented on\n\n 18.03.2020.4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that\n\n the story propounded by the prosecution does not inspire confidence.Independent witnesses associated by the investigating agency &\n\n examined during trial, have not supported the prosecution case. It was\n\n\n\n\n further highlighted that the petitioner has already spent about 3 years\n\n\n\n\n\n and 10 months in custody. The prosecution has still not been able to\n\n\n\n\n\n lead its entire evidence. The trial is delayed. Therefore, on this ground\n\n alone, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the grant\n\n of bail and submitted that the petitioner is accused of possessing\n\n 8.212 kgs of cannabis. Being a case of recovery of commercial\n\n quantity of the contraband, provisions ofSection 37of the NDPS Act\n\n are attracted. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy the::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS3conditions imposed therein, therefore, he is not entitled to bail. It was\n\n further submitted that the instant is not a case of delay in trial..Prosecution has been leading its evidence. As of now, the prosecution\n\n\n\n\n\n has examined 14 witnesses; 2 witnesses have been given up; Only 6\n\n witnesses remain to be examined. Since the Trial is nearing\n\n\n\n\n\n completion, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged\n\n on bail.5. Observations:-5(i). Since quantity of the contraband recovered in the FIR is\n\n commercial, therefore,Section 37of the NDPS Act comes into play.In order to avail bail, the petitioner has to satisfy\n\n following twin conditions imposed inSection 37of the NDPS Act:-"(i) Court should be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for\n believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence; and(ii) Petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."5(ii) Hon'ble Apex Court in (2020) 12 SCC 122, titled State\n\n of Kerala and others Versus Rajesh and others, after considering\n\n\n\n\n\n various pronouncements held that the expression 'reasonable\n\n grounds' used inSection 37of the NDPS Act means something more\n\n than prima-facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable\n\n causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of alleged offence.It would be appropriate to extract relevant paras from the judgment:-"19. The scheme ofSection 37reveals that the exercise of power\n to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS4Section 439of the Cr.PC, but is also subject to the limitation placed\n bySection 37which commences with non- obstante clause. The\n operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing\n\n\n\n\n .the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an\n\n\n\n\n\n offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first\n condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to\n oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be\n\n\n\n\n\n satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is\n not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not\n satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.20. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more\n\n\n\n\n\n than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable\n causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged\n offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision\n\n requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are\n\n sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is\n 6not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High\n Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object\n ofSection 37that in addition to the limitations provided under theCr.PC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the\n grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under theNDPS Actis indeed uncalled for."5(iii) Present is a case of recovery of 8.212 kgs of cannabis\n\n\n\n\n\n from the petitioner. The quantity recovered from the petitioner is not\n\n\n\n\n\n just commercial but is quite huge at that, however, the fact remains\n\n that the petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2019. He has by now\n\n completed 2 months short of 4 years in custody. The respondent has\n\n not indicated any previous criminal history of the petitioner in the\n\n status report.5(iv) AIR 2023 SC 1648 (Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs.\n\n State (NCT of Delhi) was decided on 28.03.2023. Petitioner therein::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS5facing charge underSection 29of the Act and suffering incarceration\n\n for over seven years was granted bail on account of delay in trial..Hon'ble Court, inter-alia, reiterated that when stringent provisions are\n\n\n\n\n\n enacted, curtailing the provisions of bail and restraining judicial\n\n discretion, it is on the basis that investigation and trials would be\n\n\n\n\n\n concluded swiftly. Pronouncements in (2021) 3 SCC 713 (Union of\n\n India V. K.A. Najeeb) and (2022) 6 SLR 382 (Vijay Madan Lal\n\n\n\n\n\n Chaudhary Vs Union of India) were also observed wherein it was\n\n concluded that statutory restrictions like "section 43-D(5) of UAPA\n\n cannot fetter a constitutional Court's ability to grant bail on ground of\n\n violation of fundamental right" ..... "If the Parliament provides for\n\n stringent provision of no bail unless the stringent conditions are\n\n\n\n fulfilled, it is the bounden duty of the State to ensure that such trials\n\n get precedence and are concluded within a reasonable time at least\n\n\n\n\n before the accused undergoes detention for a period extending up to\n\n\n\n\n\n one and half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the\n\n\n\n\n\n concerned offence by law. (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Satender Kumar\n\n Antil Vs. CBI) was also considered, where prolonged incarceration\n\n and inordinate delay engaged the attention of Court vis-à-vis several\n\n enactments includingSection 37of NDPS Act. In Mohd. Muslim's\n\n case (supra), it was held as under with reference to expression "not\n\n guilty of such offence":-::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS6"18. The conditions which courts have to be cognizant of are\n that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is\n "not guilty of such offence" and that he is not likely to commit any\n\n\n\n\n .offence while on bail. What is meant by "not guilty" when all the\n\n\n\n\n\n evidence is not before the court? It can only be a 18 As per the\n counteraffidavit dated 21.02.2023 filed by the respondent-state\n before this court. prima facie determination. That places the court's\n\n\n\n\n\n discretion within a very narrow margin. Given the mandate of the\n general law on bails (Sections 436,437and439,Cr.PC) which\n classify offences based on their gravity, and instruct that certain\n serious crimes have to be dealt with differently while considering\n\n\n\n\n\n bail applications, the additional condition that the court should be\n satisfied that the accused (who is in law presumed to be innocent)\n is not guilty, has to be interpreted reasonably. Further the\n\n classification of offences underSpecial Acts (NDPS Act, etc.),\n\n which apply over and above the ordinary bail conditions required to\n be assessed by courts, require that the court records its\n satisfaction that the accused might not be guilty of the offence and\n that upon release, they are not likely to commit any offence. These\n\n\n\n two conditions have the effect of overshadowing other conditions.\n In cases where bail is sought, the court assesses the material on\n\n\n\n\n record such as the nature of the offence, likelihood of the accused\n cooperating with the investigation, not fleeing from justice: even in\n\n\n\n\n\n serious offences like murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. On the other\n hand, the court in these cases under such special Acts, have to\n address itself principally on two facts: likely guilt of the accused\n\n\n\n\n\n and the likelihood of them not committing any offence upon\n release. This court has generally upheld such conditions on the\n ground that liberty of such citizens have to - in cases when\n accused of offences enacted under special laws - be balanced\n against the public interest.19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions underSection 37(i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is\n not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively\n exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and\n unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS7manner in which such special conditions as enacted underSection\n 37can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the\n court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material\n\n\n\n\n .on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused\n\n\n\n\n\n is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete\n denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those\n enacted underSection 37of the NDPS Act.20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the\n court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably\n see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The judgments of\n this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which\n\n\n\n\n\n courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be\n guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which\n does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected\n\n during investigation (as held inUnion of India v. Rattan Malik19).Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be\n fettered bySection 37of the Act, given the imperative ofSection\n 436Awhich is applicable to offences under theNDPS Acttoo (ref.\n Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the\n\n\n\n court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant\n deserves to be enlarged on bail."5(v) While deciding Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4169/2023 vide judgment dated 13.07.2023 (Rabi Prakash Vs. The\n\n State of Odisha), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that prolonged\n\n\n\n\n\n incarceration, generally militates against the most precious\n\n fundamental right guaranteed underArticle 21of the Constitution and\n\n in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory\n\n embargo created underSection 37(1)(b)(ii)of the NDPS Act.5(vi) The FIR in question was registered on 19.12.2019 and\n\n the trial has still not been concluded. Vide order dated 06.09.2023,::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS8the respondent was directed to file an affidavit detailing therein the\n\n witnesses examined by the prosecution as on date, the dates of their\n\n\n\n\n .examination and the reason as to why till date, the prosecution had\n\n\n\n\n\n not been able to conclude the trial. In the affidavit filed by the\n\n Superintendent of Police, Chamba, District Chamba, the prime\n\n\n\n\n\n reason for delaying the trial was put on Covid-19 pandemic. Some of\n\n the zimni orders placed on record prima-facie give impression that\n\n\n\n\n\n the prosecution witnesses were though served at times but did not\n\n remain present in the Court, rather applications were moved for\n\n exempting them from appearing in the Court. According to the status\n\n report and as submitted by learned Additional Advocate General, the\n\n prosecution even now has to examine 6 more witnesses. Considering\n\n\n\n the fact that FIR in question pertains to the year 2019 and also the\n\n fact that the final report was presented as far back as on 18.03.2020,\n\n\n\n\n the pace of the trial is apparently very slow. At this pace, the trial will\n\n\n\n\n\n still take long time to conclude. Learned counsel for the petitioner has\n\n\n\n\n\n also highlighted that the independent witnesses did not support the\n\n prosecution case. Taking into consideration the facts and\n\n circumstances of the case in the backdrop of law laid down in\n\n Mohammad Muslim's and Rabi Prakash's cases, supra and the\n\n period spent by the petitioner in custody coupled with the fact that\n\n trial of the case will take long time to conclude, the petitioner, at this\n\n stage, has made out a case for his enlargement on regular bail.::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS9Petitioner is in custody ever since 19.12.2019 & has completed\n\n almost three years & ten months as an under trial prisoner. Status\n\n\n\n\n .report does not indicate any previous criminal history of the petitioner,\n\n\n\n\n\n therefore, it can be reasonably believed that the petitioner will not\n\n indulge himself in similar offence in future.In view of all the aforesaid reasons, the present petition\n\n is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the\n\n\n\n\n\n aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of\n\n Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one local surety in the\n\n like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court having\n\n jurisdiction over the Police Station concerned, subject to the following\n\n conditions:-(i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the\n case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer\n\n\n\n\n in accordance with law. He shall fully cooperate the\n\n\n\n\n\n Investigating Officer and will appear before him in the\n concerned police station as and when called in\n accordance with law.(ii). Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or\n hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.(iii). Petitioner will not leave India without prior\n permission of the Court.(iv). Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or\n promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer\n or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS10dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court\n or any Police Officer.(v). Petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing,\n\n\n\n\n .unless exempted in accordance with law.(vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of\n the concerned police station about his place of\n\n\n\n\n\n residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same\n shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter.\n Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card,\n\n\n\n\n\n Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account\n Number, if any.(vii) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned\n\n as an accused, in future, in any FIR underNDPS Act,\n\n then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the\n Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in\n that regard. This shall also be considered as a negative\n\n\n\n factor for consideration of his future bail application, if\n any.In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of\n\n\n\n\n\n the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate\n\n application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that\n\n\n\n\n\n observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of\n\n instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the\n\n merits of the matter. Any observation hereinabove shall not be taken\n\n as an expression on merits of the case and learned Trial Court shall\n\n decide the matter uninfluenced by any of observations made\n\n hereinabove.::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS11With the aforesaid observations, the present petition\n\n stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications,\n\n\n\n\n .if any.Jyotsna Rewal Dua\n\n\n\n\n\n Judge\n 11th October 2023(Rohit)\n\n\n\n\n r to::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:36:32 :::CIS |
a1a0034f-6233-55d6-9957-9b19966f2a7e | court_cases | Jammu & Kashmir High CourtM/S Simula Software Solutions And vs Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd. And Anr on 23 September, 2021Bench:Dhiraj Singh Thakur,Puneet GuptaSr. No. 20\n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n AT JAMMU\n\n\n WP(C) No. 2010/2021\n CM No. 7452/2021\n Caveat No. 1787/2021\n\nM/S Simula Software Solutions and .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)\nResearch Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.\n\n Through: Mr. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with\n Mr. Udhay Bhasker, Advocate\n\n Vs\n\nJammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Anr. ..... Respondent(s)\n\n Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG for the Caveator/\n Respondents\n\nCoram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE\n\n ORDER23.09.2021Caveat No. 1787/2021Caveat stands discharged.WP(C) No. 2010/2021Issue notice.Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG waives notice on behalf of the\n\nrespondents.The petitioners challenge the notice of possession issued by the\n\nrespondent-Bank in purported exercises of powers under Section 13(4) of the\n\nSecuritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of2 WP(C) No. 2010/2021Security Interest Act, 2002(hereinafter referred to as "theSARFAESI Act").\n\nThe action has been initiated by the Bank under theSARFAESI Actin view of\n\nthe fact that an amount approximately Rs. 1.15 crore is outstanding against the\n\npetitioners. The petitioners have raised various grounds to challenge the action\n\nof the respondent-Bank.On the other hand, Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG has vehemently\n\nopposed grant of any interim relief to the petitioners on the ground that the\n\npetitioners' are also the partner/Director in other concerns against whom the\n\nBank has to recover the money to the tune of more than approximately Rs. 237\n\ncrores in one case, Rs. 1.14 crore in another and in yet another case, Rs. 7.59\n\ncrores approximately.It is stated that although the legal entities in the shape of partnership\n\nfirms/companies were different yet the person running the companies is the\n\nsame. It was therefore, stated that it was only on account of the inability of\n\ndefaulters to pay the amount, which was outstanding against them, action has\n\nbeen taken by the Bank including the present one where some of the properties\n\nwhich were collateral securities are sought to be proceeded against for satisfying\n\nthe loan amount.However, Mr. R. K. Gupta, learned senior arguing counsel appearing\n\non behalf of the petitioners stated that the properties of which the possession has\n\nbeen taken over and in regard to which proceedings underSection 13(4)of the\n\nSARFAESI Act were initiated are valued much more than the loan amount,\n\nwhich is outstanding.3 WP(C) No. 2010/2021It is stated that the petitioners apprehend that their properties would\n\nbe sold for pittance by the Bank, which would severely prejudice the interests of\n\nthe petitioners. It is, therefore, suggested that the petitioners are interested in re-\n\npaying the loan amount subject to the condition that the same be ordered by\n\nfixing some comfortable installments.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.\n\n\n We feel that while dealing with matters under theSARFAESI Act,\n\nthis Court does not enjoy the exclusive jurisdiction of withholding the action\n\ntaken under the provisions of theSARFAESI Actby fixing installments and\n\ndisposing of the matters at the very outset. However, the petitioners have raised\n\nthe issue with regard to the procedural irregularities in the enforcement of the\n\nprovisions of theSARFAESI Actand keeping in view the fact that the\n\npetitioners have also expressed their desire to repay the loan amount, we pass\n\nthe following directions:-i) The petitioners shall pay 50 percent of the outstanding amount,\n\n which on rough estimate is taken as Rs. 57 lacs out of total\n\n outstanding Rs. 1.15 crores (approximate basis) within a period\n\n of four weeks from today.ii) Within two weeks from today, the petitioners would also\n\n submit a proposal to the Bank for fixation of installments for\n\n payment of the remaining loan amount. The proposal would\n\n then be considered on its own merits and a decision taken by\n\n the Bank.4 WP(C) No. 2010/2021Needless to say that the Bank should take a pragmatic view of\n\n the matter considering the fact that the petitioners have\n\n expressed their willingness to re-pay the entire amount.\n\n\n In the interregnum, status quo with regard to the properties in question\n\n will be maintained. In case the aforementioned amount is not deposited with the\n\n Bank within the time prescribed, the interim order would stand vacated without\n\n any further extension and appropriate orders would be passed on the next date of\n\n hearing.List again on 28.10.2021.Meanwhile, objections be filed.(Puneet Gupta) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)\n Judge Judge\n Jammu\n 23.09.2021\n MuneeshMUNEESH SHARMA2021.09.23 17:43I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document |
9589d9dc-551b-5486-9d2e-1d20ec99dc86 | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nKarnataka High Court\nBebijan Bashasab Mulla vs The Assistant Executive Engineer ... on 6 November, 2023Bench: M.I.Arun\n -1-\n NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948\n WP No. 84168 of 2013\n C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH\n DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023\n BEFORE\n THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN\n WRIT PETITION NO. 84168 OF 2013 (GM-RES)\n C/W\n WRIT PETITION NO. 83468 OF 2013\n IN WP NO.84168/2013:\n\n BETWEEN:\n\n 1. SMT. BEBIJAN BASHASAB MULLA,\n AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,\n R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG,\n DIST: BELGAUM.\n\n 2. KUM. IBRAHIMSAB S/O. BASHASAB MULLA ,\n AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,\n R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG,\n DIST: BELGAUM.\n\n 3. KUM. RAMJANSAB S/O. BASHASAB MULLA,\nGIRIJA A\nBYAHATTI AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,\nDigitally R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG,\nsigned by\nGIRIJA A DIST: BELGAUM.\nBYAHATTI\n\n\n SINCE THE PETITIONERS NO.3 BEING A MINOR\n REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER\n PETITIONER NO.1.\n ...PETITIONERS\n (BY SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)\n AND:\n 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC),\n O & M SUB-DIVISION, HESCOM MUDHOL,\n -2-\n NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948\n WP No. 84168 of 2013\n C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013\n\n\n\n TALUK: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.\n\n2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELEC),\n HESCOM, O & M DIVISION,\n JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.\n\n3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ,\n HESCOM, NAVANAGAR,\n HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.\n ...RESPONDENTS\n(BY SRI G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)\n\n\n THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226\nAND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE\nA WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE\nIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.04.2013 UNDER\nO.P.NO.210/2009 PASSED BY THEPERMANENT LOK-ADALATH\nBELGAUM VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR CONTRIBUTORY\nNEGLIGENCE IS CONCERNED AND AWARD JUST AND\nREASONABLE COMPENSATION UNDER THE ALL PERMISSIBLE\nHEADS.\n\n\nIN WP NO.83468/2013:\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n\n1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,\n (ELEC) O & M SUB DIVISION HESCOM MUDHOL,\n TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.\n\n2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,\n HESCOM, O & M DIVISION,\n JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.\n\n3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,\n HESCOM, NAVANAGAR,\n HUBLI, DIST: HUBLI.\n -3-\n NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948\n WP No. 84168 of 2013\n C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013\n\n\n\n ...PETITIONERS\n\n(BY SRI G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)\n\nAND:\n\n1. SMT. BIBIJAN BASHASAB MULLA,\n AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,\n R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG.\n\n2. KUM. IBRAHIMSAB S/O. BASHASAB MULLA ,\n AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,\n R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG,\n DIST: BELGAUM.\n\n3. KUM. RAMJANSAB S/O. BASHASAB MULLA ,\n AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,\n SINCE THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 BEING\n MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER\n RESPONDENT NO.1\n\n ...RESPONDENTS\n\n(BY SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)\n\n THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226\nAND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL\nFOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF O.P.NO.210/2009 ON THE FILE\nOF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELGAUM; QUASH THE\nIMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.04.2013 MADE\nIN O.S.NO.210/2009 PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK\nADALAT, BELGAUM PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.\n\n THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY\nHEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE\nFOLLOWING:\n -4-\n NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948\n WP No. 84168 of 2013\n C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013\n\n\n\n\n COMMON ORDER\n\n Aggrieved by the order passed in O.P. No.210/2009 by\n\nthe Court of Permanent Lok Adalat, Belagavi, the petitioners\n\nhave preferred W.P. No.84168/2013 and respondents therein\n\nhave preferred W.P. No.83468/2013.\n 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are\n\nreferred to as per their status before the Permanent Lok Adalat.\n\n\n 3. Petitioners are wife and children of late Bashasab\n\nMulla. He was working on the fields belonging to his brother\n\nand was helping fixing of the bore-well. The respondents had\n\nlaid electrical wires in the lands of the brother of the deceased.\n\nWhile fixing the bore-well, the pipe held by the deceased came\n\nin contact with the wire resulting in electrocution and death of\n\nBashasab Mulla. Petitioners made a claim before the Permanent\n\nLok Adalat for compensation. Based on the evidence let in, the\n\nPermanent Lok Adalat came to a conclusion that the live\n\nelectric wire was less than 4.6 meters in height, which was\n\nmandated by the statute and were also not insulated. This act\n\nwas held to be negligence on the part of the respondents.\n\nFurther the accident happened in the broad daylight and the\n -5-\n NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948\n WP No. 84168 of 2013\n C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013\n\n\n\ndeceased was also held to be negligent in not taking care to see\n\nas to where that the wires were and whether it touched with\n\nthe pipe held by him. For that reason, the Permanent Lok\n\nAdalat came to a conclusion that the respondents are\n\nresponsible to an extent of 75% for causing the accident and\n\n25% of negligence is attributed against the deceased.\n\n\n 4. I do not see any reason to differ from the\n\nconclusion of the Permanent Lok Adalat in this regard.\n\n\n 5. The next question that arises for consideration is:\n\n\n "Whether the compensation awarded is\n appropriate or not?"\n\n 6. The Permanent Lok Adalat has adopted the\n\nyardstick adopted in Motor Vehicles cases to award\n\ncompensation and I do not see any error in the same. The only\n\nquestion that arises is about the quantum.\n\n\n 7. The accident happened in the year 2007. The\n\npetitioners have not established the income of the deceased.\n\nThus it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income as\n\nper the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authority\n\nand it would be appropriate to fix the income of the deceased\n -6-\n NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948\n WP No. 84168 of 2013\n C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013\n\n\n\nat Rs.4,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged\n\n35 years at the time of the accident and a multiplier of 16 has\n\nto be adopted. Further 40% has to be added towards his\n\nincome as future prospects and given the fact that he had three\n\ndependants, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal\n\nexpenses. Further Rs.70,000/- is awarded towards loss of\n\nestate, funeral expenses and also loss of consortium. Thus,\n\npetitioners would be entitled to a sum of Rs.7,16,800/-\n\n(Rs.4,000 X 12 X 16 + 40% X 2/3rd + Rs.70,000/-) as against\n\nRs.5,76,000/-. Thus, the petitioners would be entitled to a sum\n\nof Rs.7,86,800/-. If 25% is deducted from the same, towards\n\nnegligence on the part of the deceased, the petitioners will be\n\nentitled to a sum of Rs.5,91,100/- as against Rs.4,65,000/-\n\nawarded by the Tribunal.\n\n\n 8. Given the bank rate of interest, I am of the opinion\n\nthat the petitioners would be entitled to an interest at the rate\n\nof 6% p.a. from the date of petition before the Permanent Lok\n\nAdalat till realization.\n\n\n 9. The respondents are directed to pay the\n\ncompensation to the petitioners within a period of six weeks\n -7-\n NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948\n WP No. 84168 of 2013\n C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013\n\n\n\nfrom the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after\n\ndeducting the payments already made.\n\n\n The writ petitions are disposed off accordingly.\n\n\n\n\n Sd/-\n JUDGE\n\n\nRSH / Ct-mck\nList No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 |
5f695b9a-811d-504f-80b7-a4db6b5fcc96 | court_cases | Central Administrative Tribunal - JaipurJamuna Prasad vs D/O Atomic Energy on 24 December, 20211\n\nOA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL\n JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR\n\n\n ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 18/2012,\n ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 304/2013\n &\n ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 645/2014\n\n\nOrder reserved on 01.12.2021\n\n\n DATE OF ORDER: 24.12.2021\n\nCORAM\n\nHON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER\nHON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\n\nOA No. 18/2012\n\nJamuna Prasad son of late Shri Sukh Ram, age 55\nyears, resident of 52/203, Sector 5, Pratap Nagar,\nSanganer, Jaipur. Presently working as Scientific\nOfficer "E", Atomic Minerals Directorate, Pratap Nagar,\nJaipur.\n\n ....Applicant\n\nShri Mahendra Shah, with Shri Kamlesh Sharma and\nMs. Sarah S. Sharma, counsel for applicant.\n\n VERSUS\n\n 1. Union of India through the Chairman, Atomic\n Energy Commission and Secretary to the\n Government of India, Department of Atomic\n Energy, Anu Shakti Bhawan, Chhatrapati Shivaji\n Maharaj Marg, Mumbai-400001.\n 2. The Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for\n Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic\n Energy, 1-10-153-156, Begum Pet, Hyderabad-\n 500016.\n 3. The Regional Director, Atomic Minerals\n Directorate for Exploration and Research,\n Western Region, Department of Atomic Energy,\n 2\n\nOA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n Sector-5, Extension Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,\n Jaipur-302033.\n 4. Shri S.K. Sharma, Scientific Officer (F) Geology,\n Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and\n Research, Department of Atomic Energy, West\n Block-VII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.\n 5. Shri Ramesh Chandra, Scientific Officer (F)\n (Civil), Rajasthan Atomic Power Project-Unit 5 &\n 6, P.O. Anushakti, Via Kota (Raj.) 323303.\n\n .... Respondents\n\nShri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondents.\n\n\nOA No. 304/2013\n\nJamuna Prasad son of late Shri Sukh Ram, resident of\n52/203, Sector 5, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.\nPresently working as Scientific Officer "E", Atomic\nMinerals Directorate, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.\n\n ....Applicant\n\nShri Mahendra Shah, with Shri Kamlesh Sharma and\nMs. Sarah S. Sharma, counsel for applicant.\n\n VERSUS\n\n 1. Union of India through the Chairman, Atomic\n Energy Commission and Secretary to the\n Government of India, Department of Atomic\n Energy, Anu Shakti Bhawan, Chhatrapati Shivaji\n Maharaj Marg, Mumbai-400 001.\n\n 2. The Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for\n Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic\n Energy, 1-10-153-156, Begum Pet, Hyderabad-\n 500016.\n\n\n 3. The Regional Director, Atomic Minerals\n Directorate for Exploration and Research,\n Western Region, Department of Atomic Energy,\n Sector-5, Extension Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,\n Jaipur-302033.\n 3\n\nOA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n 4. Shri Vinod J. Katti, Regional Director, Office of\n the Director, Atomic Minerals Exploration and\n Research, Khash Mahal, Tata Nagar, Jamsedpur,\n East-Singhbhum, Jharkhand - 831002.\n\n .... Respondents\n\nShri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondents.\n\n\nOA No. 645/2014\n\nJamuna Prasad S/o late Shri Sukh Ram, aged about\n58 years, permanent resident of 52/2, Sector 5,\nPratap agar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Presently working as\nS.O.E. under Directorate of Construction Services &\nEstate Management, Mumbai.\n\n ....Applicant\n\nShri Mahendra Shah, with Shri Kamlesh Sharma and\nMs. Sarah S. Sharma, counsel for applicant.\n\n VERSUS\n\n 1. Union of India through the Chairman, Atomic\n Energy Commission and Secretary to the\n Government of India, Department of Atomic\n Energy, Anu Shakti Bhawan, Chhatrapati Shivaji\n Maharaj Marg, Mumbai-400001.\n\n 2. The Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for\n Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic\n Energy, 1-10-153-156, Begum Pet, Hyderabad-\n 500016.\n\n\n 3. The Regional Director, Atomic Minerals\n Directorate for Exploration and Research,\n Western Region, Department of Atomic Energy,\n Sector-5, Extension Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,\n Jaipur-302033.\n\n\n 4. Shri Pratap Singh Parihar, Director, Atomic\n Minerals Directorate for Exploration and\n Research, Department of Atomic Energy, 1-10-\n 153-156, Begum Pet, Hyderabad-500016.\n 4\n\nOA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n 5. Shri G.S. Sharma, Scientific Officer-G, Western\n Region, Atomic Minerals Directorate for\n Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic\n Energy, Sector 5 Extension, Pratap Nagar,\n Sanganer, Jaipur-302033.\n\n .... Respondents\n\nShri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondents.\n\n\n ORDERPer: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member\n\n\n Since common question of law and facts is involved\n\nin OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 and OA No.\n\n645/2014 and also as the same are interlinked to each\n\nother, therefore, all aforesaid OAs are taken up\n\ntogether for disposal.2. OA No. 304/2013 has been filed by the applicant\n\npraying for quashing and setting aside the letters\n\ndated 06.09.2010, 06.09.2010, 16.11.2010 and the\n\norder dated 01.01.2013 with a further prayer to direct\n\nthe respondents to expunge the remarks recorded in\n\nthe ACR for the period 01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 and\n\nthat the respondents may be directed to release the\n\nbenefits of PRIS-G to the applicant along with interest5OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n@ 18% per annum by upgrading the ACR above the\n\nbenchmark.3. The brief facts of OA No. 304/2013, as stated by\n\nthe applicant, are that on being repatriated he joined\n\nunder Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and\n\nResearch Western Region, Jaipur on 01.06.2000 and\n\nwas promoted to the Grade of SO/E. He states that a\n\ncommittee was formed including the applicant to\n\nsupervise the work and monitor the quality of\n\nconstruction on day to day basis including\n\nmaintenance of records, test reports, checking and\n\ncertification of all measurements and bills submitted\n\nby RHB recommending payments to RHB. But again\n\nwithin a short span of time i.e. on 18.12.2001,\n\nanother committee was constituted replacing him by\n\nanother person(s) by assigning them all duties and\n\npowers as were vested in him and the respondent-\n\ndepartment did not assign any reason for removing\n\nhim from the said committee and therefore, he has\n\nbeen humiliated by non-assignment of works related\n\nto his qualification and skill and, thus, was forced to\n\nsit idle. He, thereafter, approached this Tribunal by\n\nway of filing OA No. 494/2002 but vide order dated6OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n15.11.2002, this Tribunal directed the applicant to file\n\na representation. It is the claim of the applicant that\n\nthe representation submitted by him was rejected\n\nmechanically without considering his contentions and\n\nsubmissions raised by him. Thus, respondents have\n\nacted malafidely against him and, therefore, there was\n\ninordinate delay in communicating the adverse\n\nremarks recorded in his ACR for the period from\n\n01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009, which was communicated\n\nto him vide letter dated 06.09.2010. Thus, he was\n\nforced to submit a representation dated 29.09.2010,\n\nwhich was mechanically rejected vide order dated\n\n16.11.2010 by the Reviewing Officer without applying\n\nhis mind. The applicant states that the Reviewing\n\nOfficer at the most could exercise his power and\n\napprove the remarks recorded by the Reporting\n\nOfficer or expunge the same but he did not have\n\njurisdiction to reject the representation and sustain\n\nthe adverse remarks. Thereafter, he submitted an\n\nappeal dated 06.05.2011 to the Director, AMD,\n\nHyderabad, raising his grievances but since the matter\n\nwas not adjudicated by the Appellate Authority, he\n\npreferred OA No. 222/2012 before this Tribunal, which\n\nwas disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2012 with a7OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\ndirection to decide the appeal dated 06.05.2011.\n\nSince the appeal dated 06.05.2011 was not decided as\n\nper direction of this Tribunal, he was forced to file a\n\nContempt Petition No. 69/2012. But after issue of\n\nnotices in the Contempt Petition, the appeal of the\n\napplicant was rejected arbitrarily with malafide\n\nintention vide order dated 01.01.2013. Thus, the\n\napplicant has approached this Tribunal for redressal of\n\nhis grievances praying for quashing and setting aside\n\nthe letters dated 06.09.2010, 06.09.2010, 16.11.2010\n\nand the order dated 01.01.2013 with a further prayer\n\nto direct the respondents to expunge the remarks\n\nrecorded in the ACR for the period 01.12.2008 to\n\n30.06.2009 and that the respondents may be directed\n\nto release the benefits of PRIS-G to the applicant\n\nalong with interest @ 18% per annum by upgrading\n\nthe ACR above the benchmark.4. After issue of notices, the respondent nos. 1 to 4\n\nhave filed their reply stating that the applicant has\n\njoined the Directorate as Scientific Officer/D on\n\n01.06.2000 at Jaipur on repatriation from NPCIL in\n\nterms of letter dated 11.10.1999 issued by Rajasthan\n\nAtomic Power Project, Nuclear Power Corporation,8OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nafter being declared as surplus by Nuclear Power\n\nCorporation and after furnishing his willingness to join\n\nthe respondent-directorate. He was subsequently\n\npromoted to the grade of Scientific Officer/E with\n\neffect from 01.02.2001. He being a Group-A Gazetted\n\nOfficer was completely aware about his job but yet\n\ninstead of taking up assigned job willingly started\n\nmaking allegations against the respondent-Directorate\n\n/ his superiors/incharge ever since he joined the\n\nrespondent-Directorate. A speaking order dated\n\n31.12.2002 (Annexure R/1) to that effect was issued\n\nto the applicant. As far as ACR for the period from\n\n01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 is concerned, the adverse\n\nentries made in the same was communicated to the\n\napplicant vide Memorandum dated 06.09.2010. As\n\nthe applicant has not contributed anything to the\n\norganization during this period and his performance\n\ncould not be assessed and, therefore, promotion was\n\nnot granted. The adverse remarks for the period\n\n01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 were, therefore, retained\n\nand communicated to the applicant vide letter dated\n\n16.11.2010 by the Review Officer. The applicant,\n\nthereafter, submitted two appeals on the same date\n\ni.e. 06.05.2011 for the adverse entries recorded in his9OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nACR for the period from 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008,\n\nwhich was disposed of vide letter dated 12.08.2011\n\nand another appeal dated 06.05.2011 for the period\n\nfrom 01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009. The applicant has\n\nalready challenged the adverse remarks\n\ncommunicated vide letters dated 06.09.2010 for the\n\nperiod from 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008 in OA No.\n\n15/2012 and the ACR for the period from 01.12.2008\n\nto 30.06.2009 was challenged by him in OA No.\n\n222/2012 for quashing the letters dated 06.09.2010.\n\nHe had also sought a direction in these OAs to\n\nexpunge the adverse remarks and also to release the\n\nbenefits of PRIS-G to him along with interest @ 18%\n\nper annum, among other issues. The respondents,\n\ntherefore, state that the present reliefs sought by the\n\napplicant is hit by principles of res-judicata and,\n\ntherefore, the O.A. deserves to be dismissed. In OA\n\nNo. 222/2012, this Tribunal vide order dated\n\n17.04.2012 had directed the respondents to dispose of\n\nthe appeal dated 06.05.2011 of the applicant. The\n\nrespondents had with proper application of mind\n\ndisposed of the said appeal by speaking order dated\n\n01.01.2013. The applicant in the said order dated\n\n01.01.2013 was also informed that he may submit a10OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\ndetailed representation in terms of order dated\n\n21.09.2012 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 15/2012\n\nwithin the stipulated time granted by this Tribunal.\n\nAccordingly, the applicant submitted a representation\n\ndated 23.01.2013 wherein he has raised the same\n\nissues and his representation was disposed of vide\n\nspeaking order dated 12.02.2013. It is further stated\n\nthat CP No. 69/2012 filed by the applicant was\n\ndismissed vide order dated 11.04.2013 as the\n\napplicant withdrew the same because the respondents\n\nhad complied with the order dated 17.04.2012 passed\n\nin OA No. 222/2012. As far as payment of PRIS is\n\nconcerned, it is stated that PRIS is a variable\n\ncomponent of the pay, which is awarded after the\n\nperformance of individual / group / organization,\n\nmeasured against goals set for a given period of\n\nassessment, which is non-additive and non-\n\ncumulative. In order to grant the said PRIS,\n\n(organizational incentive), the final overall grading of\n\nall the employees in the ACR/APAR of the preceding\n\nreporting year should be 'Good' or above. As far as\n\nACR of the applicant for the period from 01.12.2008 to\n\n30.06.2009 is concerned, the applicant was\n\ncommunicated the adverse entries made in his11OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nconfidential report and as he did not attend to all the\n\nassigned work, the competent authority had decided\n\nto retain the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for\n\nthe period from 01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 and\n\nbenefits of PRIS was accordingly not granted to him.\n\nThus, respondents prayed that the present O.A. is\n\nbarred by principle of res judicata as the applicant has\n\nalready prayed the said reliefs of the present O.A. in\n\nthe earlier OAs filed by him and, thus, this Tribunal\n\nshould restrain from passing any orders in the present\n\nO.A. as the same were already decided by this Tribal\n\nin the earlier OAs mentioned above.5. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder but after\n\ngoing through the material placed in it, it is seen that\n\nthe same are more or less repeated by him and his\n\nonly grievance is that he was denied work\n\ndeliberately, intentionally and wilfully, which did not\n\ncommensurate to his qualification and experience as\n\nsuch work was offered to him. Unwarranted adverse\n\nremarks were made by the respondents on the basis\n\nof whims and caprices in arbitrary, capricious and\n\nmalafide manner, which resulted in rejection of his\n\nrepresentation/appeal and further denial of benefits12OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\narising under PRIS. Therefore, he prayed for setting\n\naside these illegal orders and for consequential\n\nbenefits.6. The respondents filed additional affidavit stating\n\nthat the applicant pleaded that he was not assigned\n\nthe work commensurate to the qualification, status\n\nand experience acquired by him. The applicant had\n\nexclusively filed an OA No. 494/2002 with the same\n\nprayer and this Tribunal vide order dated 15.11.2002\n\ndirected the applicant to move a representation before\n\nthe respondents. However, no liberty for any further\n\nlitigation appears in the said order passed by this\n\nTribunal in its order dated 15.11.2002. The applicant\n\nhas again filed OA No. 476/2003 and the same was\n\nrejected by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.10.2003\n\naffirming the action of the respondents. Further the\n\napplicant himself vide para 4.7 of OA No. 18/2012\n\nadmitted that the order dated 17.10.2003 passed by\n\nthis Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High\n\nCourt in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 7719/2003 vide\n\norder dated 06.11.2004. Thus, respondents prayed\n\nthat the applicant cannot be permitted to raise any\n\ngrievance in respect of assigning of the work13OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\ncommensurate to his qualification / status and\n\nexperience. The respondents further state that in the\n\nabove OAs filed by the applicant before this Tribunal\n\nagainst APAR, he has also filed several OAs on the\n\nsame issue and even against the transfer order in OA\n\nNo. 712/2013, which was dismissed vide order dated\n\n03.01.2014.7. OA No. 18/2012 has been filed by the\n\napplicant praying for quashing and setting aside the\n\norder dated 21.01.2020 whereby his representation\n\ndated 06.11.2009 was decided and the same was\n\nrejected. The applicant has also prayed that he\n\nshould be given promotion at par with his juniors Shri\n\nS.K. Sharma and Ramesh Chandra and official\n\nrespondents be directed to promote him to the grade\n\nof Scientific Officer 'F' with all consequential benefit.8. The brief facts of OA No. 18/2012, as stated\n\nby the applicant, are that he was neither sent nor\n\nconsidered for promotion by the screening committee,\n\nwhereas juniors to him were screened and promoted\n\nto the grade of Scientific Officer 'F' vide order dated\n\n10/14.11.2006 and 15.11.2007, respectively. The14OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\napplicant was neither aware nor copy of the said\n\npromotion orders were endorsed to him. Feeling\n\naggrieved the applicant had submitted detailed\n\nrepresentation on 06.11.2009 raising his grievance\n\nand claiming promotion from the date his juniors were\n\nso promoted. Surprisingly the request was declined\n\nvide order dated 21.01.2010 by observing that he is\n\nnot fulfilling the promotional norms. The screening\n\ncommittee did not recommend his name for promotion\n\nto the grade of Scientific Officer 'F' with effect from\n\n01.07.2009. Being aggrieved by the said action of the\n\nrespondents, the applicant preferred OA No. 233/2010\n\nseeking a direction to the respondents to promote him\n\nto the grade of Scientific Officer 'F' with effect from\n\n01.08.2006 at par with his juniors. When this\n\nTribunal heard the said matter, it was observed that\n\nuntil copy of promotion orders are enclosed, no relief\n\ncan be claimed by the applicant for promotion w.e.f.\n\n01.08.2006 and onwards. Thus, the relief was\n\nconfined for promotion with effect from 01.07.2009\n\nwith liberty to file fresh O.A. for promotion with effect\n\nfrom 01.08.2006. The said liberty was granted by this\n\nTribunal in MA No. 326/2010 vide order dated\n\n29.11.2010. The applicant further states that he had15OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nearlier filed OA No. 494/2002 seeking a direction to\n\nthe respondents that work should be assigned to him\n\ncommensurate to his qualification, status and\n\nexperience and the said OA was disposed of vide order\n\ndated 15.11.2002 with a direction that the\n\nrepresentation may be submitted by the applicant and\n\nthe same to be disposed of by the competent\n\nauthority by a speaking order. Accordingly, the\n\napplicant submitted a comprehensive representation\n\nand the same was rejected vide order dated\n\n31.12.2002. However, the applicant challenged the\n\nsaid order by way of filing OA No. 476/2003 but the\n\nsame was also rejected by this Tribunal and even D.B.\n\nCivil Writ Petition No. 7719/2003 was dismissed by\n\nthe Hon'ble High Curt vide order dated 06.01.2004\n\nupholding the order of this Tribunal. As the\n\nrepresentation of the applicant was rejected\n\nmechanically vide order dated 21.01.2010 with\n\nrespect to his representation dated 06.01.2009,\n\nwherein it has been mentioned that his case was\n\nconsidered by the screening committee but the said\n\ncommittee did not recommend his case as he was not\n\nfulfilling the promotion norms. Feeling aggrieved by\n\nthe denial of promotion and rejection of his16OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nrepresentation, the applicant preferred OA No.\n\n233/2010 with a prayer that the order dated\n\n21.01.2010 may be set aside and the respondents\n\nmay be directed to promote him to the grade of\n\nScientific Officer 'F' w.e.f. 01.08.2006 and onwards\n\nwith all consequential benefits at par with his juniors.\n\nAs there was an objection raised by this Tribunal, OA\n\nwas amended and the relief sought was confined for\n\npromotion only w.e.f. 01.07.2009 instead of\n\n01.08.2006. It is clear that liberty was granted by this\n\nTribunal to file a fresh OA for promotion. Thus, being\n\naggrieved by the action of the respondents, the\n\napplicant has approached this Tribunal for seeking\n\npromotion at par with his juniors w.e.f. 01.08.2006.9. After issue of notices, the respondent nos. 1 to\n\n3 have filed their reply stating that an officer in the\n\ngrade of Scientific Officer 'E' is eligible to be\n\nconsidered for promotion to the higher grade of\n\nScientific Officer 'F' provided the employee has\n\ncompleted at least five years of service in the lower\n\ngrade and has been able to earn a specified grading in\n\nthe confidential reports for the preceding four years as\n\non the eligible date for consideration of promotion.17OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nAccordingly, the case of the applicant was placed\n\nbefore the screening committee w.e.f. 01.08.2006\n\nevery year for consideration for promotion to the next\n\nhigher grade. His case could not be recommended for\n\npromotion as he did not have the requisite confidential\n\nreport grading. It is further stated that the\n\npromotions of Scientific and Technical Personnel of the\n\nrespondent-directorate are governed under 'merit\n\npromotion scheme', which is purely on merit basis and\n\nis different from the norms applicable to other\n\ncategories of staff. It is further stated that the\n\napplicant is not work oriented and being a Group 'E'\n\nGazetted Officer, he was expected to take up assigned\n\njob willingly instead of making allegations that he is\n\nexcluded from specific activities. He has also\n\nmentioned in his confidential report dossiers\n\npertaining to the year 2001-2002 2002-03 and 2003-\n\n04 as 'no work assigned'. As such, it is clear that the\n\napplicant has not contributed anything to the\n\norganization during these years and his performance\n\ncould not be assessed and, therefore promotion was\n\nnot granted. Thus, it is clear that the respondents\n\nhad considered the representation of the applicant\n\ndated 06.11.2009 and after applying their mind have18OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nrejected the same vide order dated 21.01.2010. As\n\nthe applicant has not made out any prima facie case,\n\ntherefore, the present Original Application deserves to\n\nbe dismissed.10. The applicant has filed rejoinder stating that\n\nhe was not assigned job and work according to his\n\nqualification, status and grade and, on the other hand,\n\na Geologist was appointed as in-charge to supervise\n\nand evaluate his performance despite the fact that he\n\nhad no specific knowledge / qualification of\n\nEngineering. Thus, for want of assigning requisite\n\nwork, it cannot be expected from the applicant to\n\nshow any achievement. Be that as it may, if work is\n\nnot assigned properly by the respondents, on account\n\nof their lapses, lacuna and fault, the applicant cannot\n\nbe made to suffer in respect of his promotion. As far\n\nas issuing of speaking order pursuant to this Tribunal\n\ndirection is concerned, it is clear that in order to\n\nshelter and cover up misdeeds of the officials, the\n\nDirector issued the order malafidely and revengefully\n\nsince he had exposed the arbitrary function by\n\ninitiating legal proceedings in the Court of justice,\n\ntherefore, the order dated 31.12.2002 issued by the19OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nDirector is of no significance. As far as getting accrued\n\nbenefits of promotion at par with his juniors, he\n\nfurther states that the respondents have not disclosed\n\nin the reply as to what grading was given to the\n\napplicant's performance for the preceding four years\n\nof the year of promotion given to his juniors.\n\nTherefore, he states that he has a right to file a\n\nseparate O.A. as per the orders of this Tribunal. He\n\nfurther prays that the present O.A. be allowed as even\n\nthe appellate authority had rejected the appeal\n\nmechanically, which is under challenge before this\n\nTribunal in OA No. 15/2012, which is sub-judice and\n\nhe expects to succeed and get the remarks expunged\n\nby seeking appropriate direction.11. The respondents have filed additional reply to\n\nrejoinder of the applicant and state that the applicant\n\nhad refused to take the letter dated 31.12.2002 to\n\nprepare the project proposal together with the blue\n\nprint the estimated cost. As far as OA No. 15/2012 is\n\nconcerned, the applicant had approached this Tribunal\n\nfor quashing and setting aside the letters dated\n\n06.09.2010, 16.11.2010 and 12.08.2011 of the\n\nDirectorate and to further direct the respondents to20OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nexpunge the adverse remarks and also to release the\n\nbenefits of PRIS-G to him along with interest, among\n\nother issues. It is stated that this Tribunal vide its\n\norder dated 21.09.2012 had disposed of the said OA\n\nwith certain directions that the applicant may file\n\nappeal against any adverse order if passed and that\n\nthis Tribunal had quashed the orders dated\n\n16.11.2010 and 12.08.2011 issued by the\n\nrespondent's directorate. It is further clarified that\n\nthe same was also considered along with his\n\nrepresentation / appeal dated 06.05.2011 in the\n\nspeaking order dated 01.01.2013 issued to the\n\napplicant. Thus, respondents pray that as the\n\napplicant is not entitled to any relief, the same is\n\nliable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.12. It is seen that the respondents have further\n\nfiled additional affidavit along with MA No. 28/2020\n\nand have brought on record certain documents. It\n\nwas clarified that the applicant had exclusively filed\n\nOA No. 494/2002 with the same prayer and the OA\n\nwas decided vide order dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure\n\nR/4). This Tribunal had directed the applicant to file a\n\nrepresentation and the same to be decided. It is21OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nfurther stated that no liberty for any further litigation\n\nwas granted by this Tribunal in its order dated\n\n15.11.2002. In compliance of the orders of this\n\nTribunal, the applicant had preferred a representation\n\nand the same was decided by the respondents on\n\n31.12.2002. The applicant had again moved an OA\n\nNo. 476/2003 and the same was rejected by order\n\ndated 17.10.2003 (Annexure R/5) passed by this\n\nTribunal. It is further stated that the applicant in the\n\npresent O.A. himself has clarified at para 4.7 that the\n\nsaid order of this Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble\n\nHigh Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7719/2003\n\nvie order dated 06.11.2004. Thus, the respondents\n\nstate that the applicant cannot be permitted to raise\n\nany grievance in respect of assigning him work\n\ncommensurate to his qualification, status and\n\nexperience. It is further stated that the applicant has\n\nalso filed OA No. 235/2010 against his non-promotion\n\nand his supersession by his juniors and the same\n\nprayer was made in OA No. 233/2010 as has also\n\nbeen made in the present O.A. It is further clarified\n\nthat OA No. 233/2010 was dismissed by this Tribunal\n\nvide its order dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure R/6). The\n\nsame was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by22OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nway of filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No 13291/2014,\n\nwhich has also been dismissed vide order dated\n\n25.11.2016 (Annexure R/7). Thus, the respondents\n\nstate that the applicant is now estopped from raising\n\nthe same issue afresh in the present O.A. as the same\n\nis covered by principles of res-judicata and, therefore,\n\nthe present O.A. deserves to be dismissed.13. OA No. 645/2014 has been filed by the\n\napplicant praying for quashing and setting aside the\n\nletters dated 06.09.2010, 12.03.2013 and 30.12.2013\n\n(Annexure A/1 to A/3) with a further prayer to direct\n\nthe respondents to expunge the adverse remarks\n\nmade in his confidential report for the period from\n\n01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008 and to release the benefits\n\nof PRIS-G to the applicant along with interest @ 18%\n\nper annum.14. The brief facts of OA No. 645/2014, as stated by\n\nthe applicant, are that he has never been assigned the\n\nwork commensurate to skill, experience, status and\n\ntechnical qualification possessed by him. On the\n\ncontrary, he was harassed and humiliated, which is\n\nevident from the fact that the applicant is a civil23OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nengineer and has earned lot of experience since he\n\nhas already completed tenure of about 34 years of\n\nservice under the Government of India. It is his case\n\nthat as the respondents were creating impediment /\n\nobstacle in his future promotion, he had preferred OA\n\nNo. 494/2002 with a prayer seeking direction to\n\nrespondents to assign the work commensurate to his\n\nqualification, status and experience etc. and vide\n\norder dated 15.11.2002, this Tribunal had directed the\n\napplicant to file a representation to be decided by the\n\ncompetent authority by a speaking order. The\n\nrepresentation filed by the applicant was rejected vide\n\norder dated 31.12.2002. It is his case that adverse\n\nremarks recorded in his ACR for the period from\n\n01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008 was communicated to him\n\nvide letter dated 06.09.2010 i.e. after an inordinate\n\ndelay, which frustrates and defeats the purpose of\n\nmaintaining the APAR/ACR of an officer. In reply to\n\nthe same, he submitted a representation dated\n\n29.09.2010 stating that non-communication of\n\nadverse remarks is not justified. Being aggrieved by\n\nthe action of the respondents in rejecting his\n\nrepresentation, he preferred an appeal dated\n\n06.05.2011 but vide order dated 12.08.2011, the said24OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nappeal was rejected mechanically retaining the\n\nremarks for the period 2007-08 recorded in the\n\nAPAR/ACR of the applicant. Thus, applicant had no\n\nalternative but to approach this Tribunal by way of\n\nfiling OA No. 15/2012 for quashing and setting aside\n\nthe orders dated 16.11.2010 and 12.08.2011. This\n\nTribunal vide its order dated 21st September, 2012\n\nhad disposed of the O.A. with certain directions.\n\nAccordingly, the applicant submitted a comprehensive\n\nrepresentation on 23.01.2013 (Annexure A/13) but\n\ninstead of considering the same, the same was\n\nrejected by the respondents vide order dated\n\n12.03.2013 (Annexure A/2) in a mechanical manner.\n\nBeing aggrieved by the same, the applicant has\n\npreferred an appeal dated 04.04.2013 but the same\n\nwas rejected without due application of mind by\n\nretaining the adverse remarks vide order dated\n\n30.12.2013 (Annexure A/3). Thus, being aggrieved\n\nby the action of the respondents in rejecting his\n\napplication / appeal in a bias and prejudice manner,\n\nhe has approached this Tribunal for quashing and\n\nsetting aside the said orders.25OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/201415. After issue of notices, the respondent nos. 1 to\n\n5 have filed their reply stating that applicant has filed\n\nOA No. 15/2012 before this Tribunal on similar\n\ngrounds and this Tribunal vide its order dated\n\n21.09.2012 have given directions to the respondents\n\nto provide certain documents to the applicant as\n\ndemanded and the applicant to file a detailed\n\nrepresentation and within a stipulated time, the\n\nrespondents were to reconsider the same and pass a\n\nspeaking order. It was further stated in the said order\n\nof this Tribunal that if any adverse order is passed\n\nagainst the applicant, the applicant may file appeal\n\nagainst such order. It is clarified that this Tribunal\n\nhas not granted any liberty to the applicant to file\n\nfresh O.A. against the adverse orders. The\n\nrespondents further state that the applicant has failed\n\nto submit self-appraisal for the period from\n\n01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008 despite repeated\n\nreminders. The fact of non-submission of self-\n\nappraisal has been recorded in the confidential report\n\nby the Reporting Officer and the applicant was\n\ninformed about the recordings of Reporting Office vide\n\nMemorandum dated 06.09.2010 by extending an\n\nopportunity to the applicant to make representation, if26OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nany. Accordingly, representation dated 29.09.2010\n\nsubmitted by the applicant was disposed of vide letter\n\ndated 16.11.2010 retaining the remarks. It is further\n\nstated that as far as ACR for the period of 01.12.2008\n\nto 30.06.200 is concerned, the applicant did not\n\nattend to all the assigned work and spent most of his\n\ntime in arguments and writing complaints to higher\n\nauthorities, which was communicated to him vide\n\nMemorandum dated 06.09.2010 and his\n\nrepresentation dated 29.09.2010 was disposed of by\n\nthe competent authority by retaining the adverse\n\nremarks. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant\n\nsubmitted a representation dated 06.05.2021 stating\n\nthat since he was not assigned work commensurate to\n\nhis qualification and experience and the assessment\n\nby reporting officer is not proper and requested to\n\nexpunge the adverse remarks. After personal hearing\n\nbeing allowed to the applicant on 27.07.2011 a\n\nreasoned reply dated 12.08.2011 was issued to him\n\nstating that as per OM dated 23.09.1985 issued by\n\nDOPT, if the officer reported upon declines to give\n\nself-appraisal, the Reporting Officer is free to record\n\nthe same in the particular ACR and since the applicant\n\nfailed to submit the self-appraisal, the fact has been27OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nrecorded in ACR and the remark made in the ACR has\n\nbeen retained as such. It is stated that as demanded\n\nby the applicant, the documents were supplied to him.\n\nIt is further stated that the applicant has also filed OA\n\nNo. 304/2013 alleging that he has been made to sit\n\nidle and for want of work. Again applicant filed OA\n\nNo. 645/2014 for the same reason. It is further\n\nstated that the adverse entries were communicated to\n\nthe applicant to enable him to overcome his\n\ndeficiencies and to show improvement. The applicant\n\nwas also given opportunity to represent on the\n\nadverse remarks, if he wish to do so. But instead of\n\nimproving his performance, he submitted two appeals\n\non the said date i.e. 06.05.2011. One appeal dated\n\n06.05.2011 which pertains to expunge of adverse\n\nremarks in ACR for the period from 01.12.2007 to\n\n30.11.2008, which has already been disposed of by\n\nthe Directorate vide letter dated 12.08.2011 and other\n\nappeal dated 06.05.2011 pertains to adverse remarks\n\nin the ACR for the period from 01.12.2008 to\n\n30.06.2009. It is further stated that the applicant had\n\nfiled two OAs before this Tribunal challenging the\n\nadverse remarks communicated vide letters dated\n\n06.09.2010 for the period from 01.12.2007 to28OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n30.11.2008 by way of OA No. 15/2012 and for the\n\nperiod from 01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 by way of filing\n\nOA No. 222/2012 for quashing the letters dated\n\n06.09.2010, 16.11.2010 and 12.08.2011 of\n\nDirectorate and to further direct the respondents to\n\nexpunge the adverse remarks and also to release the\n\nbenefits of PRIS-G along with interest, among other\n\nissues. Both the OAs have already been decided by\n\nthis Tribunal and, therefore, in view of principles of\n\nres-judicata, the present O.A. deserves to be\n\ndismissed.16. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder\n\ndenying the contentions raised by the respondents.17. The respondents have filed additional affidavit\n\nalong with MA No. 179/2020 bringing on record\n\ncertain orders related to the present O.A. The\n\nrespondents have stated that the applicant vide his\n\nrepresentations dated 29.09.2010 and 06.05.2011 in\n\nrespect of his adverse remarks in APAR (under\n\nreference in OA) had specifically pleaded the issue in\n\nrespect of not assigning the work commensurate to\n\nqualification, status and experience, and similar29OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nrepresentations of the applicant have already been\n\ndisposed of by the respondents in compliance of the\n\norders passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 222/2012.\n\nThe representations in respect of adverse APAR have\n\nbeen rejected by a detailed order dated 01.01.2013.\n\nIt is also pointed out by the respondents that the\n\napplicant has filed OA No. 476/2003 and the same\n\nwas rejected by this Tribunal vide order dated\n\n17.10.2003 affirming the action of the respondents.\n\nFurther, the applicant vide para 4.7 of OA No.\n\n18/2012 admitted that the order dated 17.10.2003 of\n\nthis Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court\n\nin D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7719/2003 vide order\n\ndated 06.11.2004. Thus, the applicant cannot be\n\npermitted to raise any grievance in respect of\n\nassigning the work commensurate to qualification,\n\nstatus and experience again. It is stated that since\n\nthe representation in respect of the adverse APAR of\n\nthe applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated\n\n01.01.2013, the present O.A. also suffers from the\n\nprinciples of res-judicata as the same have already\n\nbeen prayed by the applicant in his earlier litigation(s)\n\nfiled by him before this Tribunal.30OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/201418. Heard learned counsels for the parties and\n\nexamined the material available on record along with\n\nthe relevant judgments connected with the subject in\n\nissue.19. The applicant as well as the respondents have\n\nreiterated their submissions made earlier.20. M.A. No. 06/2012 filed by the applicant in OA\n\nNo. 18/2012 praying for condonation of delay in filing\n\nthe O.A. is allowed in the interest of justice.\n\nAccordingly, delay in filing the O.A. is condoned.21. When the matter was finally heard on\n\n01.12.2021, it was clear that major issues raised by\n\nthe applicant in the present three OAs have already\n\nbeen considered and decided by this Tribunal in\n\nseveral litigations / OAs filed by him in earlier rounds\n\nof litigations. The applicant cannot raise the same\n\nissues again and again by filing separate OAs and\n\nwasting the precious time of this Tribunal. It is clear\n\nfrom the perusal of the orders / records that this\n\nTribunal has considered the grievances raised by the\n\napplicant in the previous rounds of litigations and had\n\ndirected the respondents to consider the request of31OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nthe applicant asking the applicant to prefer the\n\nrepresentation(s) and the same to be decided by the\n\nrespondents. It is also seen that the respondents have\n\ncategorically dealt with his submissions and passed\n\nreasoned and speaking orders not only on his\n\nrepresentation(s) but also on the appeal filed by him.\n\nIt is seen that the disputes raised by the applicant in\n\nthe present OAs have already been adjudicated by this\n\nTribunal in several OAs filed by him earlier, as noted\n\nin the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, on principles\n\nof constructive res judicata, the applicant is barred\n\nfrom filing the present OAs before this Tribunal for\n\nredressal of his grievances already raised in earlier\n\nOAs.22. It is settled law that any matter which might\n\nand ought to have been made ground of defence or\n\nattack in a former suit or attack in a former suit, shall\n\nbe deemed to have been a matter directly and\n\nsubstantially in issue in a subsequent suit and such\n\nground filed subsequently would be barred by\n\nconstructive res judicata. As per the judgment of the\n\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case ofCommissioner of\n\nIncome Tax, Bombay vs. T.P Kumaran, reported in32OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n1996 (5) SLR 675, it is clear that the claim made by\n\nthe applicant in the present OAs are barred by\n\nconstructive res judicata under Section 11,\n\nExplanation IV,CPC. Order 2, Rule 2,CPCprohibits\n\nthe applicant to seek the remedy separately. Hence,\n\nwhen the claim was made on earlier occasion, he\n\nshould have or might have sought and secured decree\n\nor interest. He did not set and, therefore, it operates\n\nas res judicata. Thus, if the relief could be sought in\n\nthe previous proceeding and is not granted therein\n\nthen, the subsequent proceedings for the same relief\n\nwould be barred by constructive res judicata. The\n\nprinciple of res judicata also comes into play when a\n\njudgment and order or a decision on a particular issue\n\nis implicit in it, i.e. it must be deemed to have been\n\nnecessarily decided by the implication, then also the\n\nprinciple of res judicata on that issue is directly\n\napplicable. When any matter which might to have\n\nbeen made ground of defence or attack in a former\n\nsuit but was not so made, then such a matter in the\n\neyes of law to avoid multiplicity of litigations and it\n\nshould have about finality in it is deemed to have\n\nbeen constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as\n\ndecided.33OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/201423. In view of the observations made herein-above, it\n\nis clear that the present Original Applications are hit\n\nby principles of res judicata and the same deserve to\n\nbe dismissed on this ground. We have seen that the\n\napplicant is approaching this Tribunal time and again\n\nand wasting precious time not only of this Hon'ble\n\nTribunal but also of the respondent-department, who\n\ncould have utilized their time in other valuable work\n\nand which is more important than the present\n\nlitigations, which time and again repeatedly have been\n\nfiled by him under one pretext or the other, therefore,\n\na cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) is\n\nimposed upon the applicant to be paid to the C.A.T.\n\nBar Association, Jaipur within a period of four weeks\n\nfrom the date of receipt of a certified copy of this\n\norder. Accordingly, present Original Applications are\n\ndismissed being hit by principles of res judicata.(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER\n\n\n\n\n/nlk/ |
d400af22-0208-55c6-9b0f-67a34992ffc0 | court_cases | Madhya Pradesh High CourtSmt. Shyamvati Bai vs Chatra Singh on 14 March, 2023Author:Vivek AgarwalBench:Vivek AgarwalIN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n AT J A B A L P U R\n BEFORE\n HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL\n ON THE 14th OF MARCH, 2023\n\n MISC. PETITION No. 6130 of 2022\n BETWEEN:-\n\n\n SMT. SHYAMVATI BAI W/O LATE SHRI\n PYARE SINGH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT\n 75 YEARS, VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST\n 1.\n OFFICE CHANTA DISTRICT DINDORI\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n BHOLA SINGH S/O LATE SHRI PYARE\n SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O\n 2. WARD NO. 12, OLD DINDORI, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n NIHAL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI PYARE\n SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O\n 3. WARD NO. 12, OLD DINDORI, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n MAHENDRA SINGH S/O LATE SHRI\n PYARE SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,\n R/O VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST OFFICE\n 4.\n CHANTA DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n SEHDEV SINGH S/O LATE SHRI PYARE\n SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O\n VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST OFFICE\n 5.\n CHANTA DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\n SAN\n\n\n\n\nDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN\nDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST\n 2\n\n\n\n NAKUL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI PYARE\n SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O\n VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST OFFICE\n 6.\n CHANTA DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n MUNNA ALIAS VIJENDRA S/O LATE\n SHRI GAPPU ALIAS GANESH RATHORE,\n AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE\n 7. KHIRSARI POST OFFICE CHANTA\n DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n SMT. DAYAWATI BAI W/O LATE SHRI\n GAPPU ALIAS GANESH RATHORE,\n AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE\n 8.\n KHIRSARI POST OFFICE CHANTA\n DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n .....PETITIONERS\n\n (BY SHRI ABHISHEK SINGH - ADVOCATE)\n\n AND\n\n\n CHATRA SINGH S/O LATE SHRI DUALAL\n RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,\n VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST OFFICE\n 1. CHANTA POLICE STATION DINDORI\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DINDORI\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\n SAN\n\n\n\n\nDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN\nDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST\n 3\n\n\n\n SMT. KUSUM BAI W/O CHATRA SINGH\n RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O\n VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST OFFICE\n 2.\n CHANTA DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n CHIINTAMANI S/O LATE SHRI DUALAL\n RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O\n VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST OFFICE\n 3. CHANTA POLICE STATION DINDORI,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DINDORI\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n SMT. JAMOTRI BAI W/O CHINTAMANI\n RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O\n VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST OFFICE\n 4. CHANTA POLICE STATION DINDORI,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DINDORI\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n SMT. SAVITRI BAI W/O RAJKUMAR\n RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O\n 5. VILLAGE SARHARI TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n KARAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI BHONDU\n SINGH ALIAS MAANSINGH RATHORE,\n AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE\n 6. KHIRSARI POST OFFICE CHANTA\n POLICE STATION DINDORI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\n SAN\n\n\n\n\nDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN\nDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST\n 4\n\n\n\n SMT. MUNNI BAI W/O LATE SHRI KALLU\n SINGH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 55\n YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST\n 7. OFFICE CHANTA POLICE STATION\n DINDORI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n PAWAN KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI KALLU\n SINGH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 32\n YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST\n 8. OFFICE CHANTA POLICE STATION\n DINDORI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n RAMU ALIAS RAMKUMAR S/O LATE\n SHRI KALLU SINGH RATHORE, AGED\n ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE\n KHIRSARI POST OFFICE CHANTA\n 9.\n POLICE STATION DINDORI, TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n SMT. JAYANTI BAI D/O LATE SHRI\n KALLU SINGH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT\n 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MADIARAS\n 10. POST OFFICE MADIARAS TEHSIL AND\n DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n GEET SINGH S/O LATE SHRI BHONDU\n SINGH ALIAS MAAN SINGH RATHORE,\n AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE\n KHIRSARI POST OFFICE CHANTA\n 11.\n POLICE STATION DINDORI, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\n SAN\n\n\n\n\nDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN\nDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST\n 5\n\n\n\n NIRMAL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI\n BHONDU SINGH ALIAS MAAN SINGH\n RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O\n VILLAGE KHIRSARI POST OFFICE\n 12.\n CHANTA POLICE STATION DINDORI,\n TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DINDORI\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n JAY SINGH S/O LATE SHRI BHONDU\n SINGH ALIAS MAAN SINGH RATHORE,\n AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE\n KHIRSARI POST OFFICE CHANTA\n 13.\n POLICE STATION DINDORI, TEHSIL\n AND DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n SMT. RADHA BAI W/O SHIKHAR\n CHAND RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 52\n YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHATUA, POST\n 14. OFFICE CHANTA POLICE STATION\n DINDORI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n SMT. JANKI BAI W/O BUDDHU\n RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O\n VILLAGE KUKARMATH POST OFFICE\n 15.\n KUKARMATH TEHSIL AND DISTRICT\n DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,\n THROUGH COLLECTOR, DINDORI\n 16.\n DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n .....RESPONDENTS\n (BY SHRI ASHOK JAIN - ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\nSignature Not Verified\n SAN\n\n\n\n\nDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN\nDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST\n 6\n\n\n\n ___________________________________________________\n Reserved on : 16.01.2023\n Delivered on : 14.03.2023\n _______________________________________________________________\n\n\n This miscellaneous petition coming on for\n admission this day, the court passed the following:\n\n\n ORDERThis Miscellaneous Petition is filed underArticle\n\n 227of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffs being\n\n aggrieved of order dated 05.12.2022 whereby an\n\n application i.e. I.A. No.2/2022 underSection 45of the\n\n Evidence Act seeking appointment of a handwriting\n\n expert to examine the signatures of the concerned\n\n namely signatures of Ganesh, Pyare Singh and thumb\n\n impression of Bhondu on the partition-deed, Ex.D-2, is\n\n rejected by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Senior\n\n Division, Dindori.Signature Not VerifiedSANDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHANDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST72. Shri Ashok Jain, in his turn, submits that\n\n document was filed seven years ago and plaintiffs\n\n never disputed thumb impression or signatures on the\n\n said document, therefore, now at the stage when case is\n\n pending for evidence of the defendant witness, said\n\n application being highly belated and the pleadings\n\n having been not made out from the record needs to be\n\n dismissed and is dismissed as such.3. It is further submitted that defendants No.1 to 6\n\n had filed their written statement on 15.05.2015. On\n\n 28.01.2017 at the stage of recording of evidence of the\n\n plaintiffs application for taking document was allowed\n\n and case was fixed for plaintiffs evidence, thereafter,\n\n plaintiffs evidence was led and on 13.04.2018, case\n\n was fixed for defendants evidence. When defendantsSignature Not VerifiedSANDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHANDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST8tried to exhibit the said document then an objection\n\n was taken that said document is not admissible being\n\n not registered in terms of theRegistration Act1908 but\n\n at that time also no objection was taken in regard to the\n\n hand writing/thumb impression of certain persons on\n\n the document, therefore, trial Court vide order dated\n\n 01.11.2022 rejected objection in regard to its\n\n admissibility.4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and\n\n going through the record, it is an admitted fact that\n\n document in question on which hand\n\n writing/signatures/thumb impression is sought to be\n\n examined was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs at\n\n least w.e.f. 15.05.2015. They never raised any\n\n objection on this document. They for the first timeSignature Not VerifiedSANDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHANDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST9took objection as to the admissibility when defendants\n\n tried to exhibit it during their evidence. Objection of\n\n the plaintiffs as to admissibility of the document was\n\n turned down by the trial Court. That order attained\n\n finality, therefore, now at this belated stage when\n\n plaintiffs evidence is already over. It is sought to be re-\n\n agitated, that there is lacuna, in the document as it does\n\n not contain signatures of the plaintiff.5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the\n\n judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Shakun (Smt.)\n\n V. Smt. Shashi Jain and Others, 2016(3) MPWN\n\n 121 wherein despite recording a finding that plaintiffs\n\n had moved an application belatedly and should have\n\n been vigilant during the trial allowed the petition\n\n subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- and directedSignature Not VerifiedSANDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHANDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST10the Trial Court to allow further examination only in\n\n respect of the opinion o f the handwriting expert.6. Facts of the present case are different. In the\n\n present case neither any handwriting expert report is\n\n available on record nor any evidence was led by the\n\n plaintiffs disputing the signatures/thumb impression of\n\n the authors of the document during the course of their\n\n evidence. Therefore, in the present case, issue is not\n\n only in regard to delay, issue is also in regard to\n\n bonafides. When plaintiffs throughout their evidence\n\n did not dispute the signatures of Ganesh, Pyare Singh\n\n and thumb impression of Bhondu on the partition-\n\n deed, Ex.D/2 then they could not have raised this\n\n dispute for the first time during the evidence of the\n\n defendants witness and then seek verification ofSignature Not VerifiedSANDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHANDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST11signatures of Ganesh, Pyare Singh and thumb\n\n impression of Bhondu. Thus impugned order, rejecting\n\n the application treating it not to be bonafide and also\n\n delayed cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary calling\n\n for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this\n\n High Court specially when facts of the case of Shakun\n\n (Smt.)(supra) are different, petition is liable to be\n\n dismissed and is hereby dismissed.(VIVEK AGARWAL)\n JUDGE\n\n\n TabishSignature Not VerifiedSANDigitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHANDate: 2023.03.15 15:38:11 IST |
3f80fc25-8e09-5120-a25c-96cd29a71107 | court_cases | Jammu & Kashmir High CourtSurinder Kumar Sharma And Anr vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 17 April, 2023Author:Rajnesh OswalBench:Rajnesh Oswal112\n\n\n\n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n AT JAMMU\n CRM(M) No. 249/2022\n\n\nSurinder Kumar Sharma and Anr. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)\n\n\nq\n Through: Mr. Sudesh Sharma, Advocate\n vs\nUT of J&K and ors. ..... Respondent(s)\n Through: Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA\n Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate\n\nCoram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE\n\n ORDER (ORAL)1. The instant petition underSection 482Cr.P.C. has been filed by the\n\npetitioners for quashing the challan/charge sheet bearing file No. 150/Challan\n\narising out of FIR No. 26/2019 for commission of offences under Section 498-\n\nA/506 RPC pending before the Court of learned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial\n\nMagistrate), Doda to the extent of petitioners.2. It appears that due to marital discord, respondent No. 2-wife has filed\n\nFIR No. 26/2019 against the proforma respondent No. 3 and his parents for\n\ncommission of offence under section 498-A and 506/RPC, which has\n\nculminated into the impugned challan/charge sheet. The charge sheet has been\n\nchallenged on the ground that prosecution under Section 498-A is not\n\npermissible against the relatives of the husband and that there is no clear\n\nallegation with regard to demand of dowry or domestic violence and further\n\nthat the contesting parties have settled the dispute amicably.2 CRM(M) No. 249/20223. Pursuant to statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners\n\nthat the parties have amicably settled their disputes, statements of respondent\n\nNo. 2 and proforma respondent No. 3 were recorded before the Registrar\n\nJudicial, wherein they have stated they have mutually agreed to dissolve their\n\nmarriage and have filed a joint petition for dissolution of marriage, which is\n\npending before the Court of District Judge, Bhaderwah. The proforma\n\nrespondent has stated that he has already paid alimony to the tune of Rs.\n\n10,00,000/- to respondent No. 2. The said fact has been admitted by respondent\n\nNo. 2 in her statement. The respondent No. 2 has stated that she has no\n\nobjection in case the impugned FIR lodged by her against the petitioners as\n\nwell as charge sheet bearing file No. 150/Challan, pending before the Court of\n\nlearned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Doda and the proceedings\n\nemanating there from, are quashed by this Court.4. It needs to be noted here that offences under sections 506 RPC is\n\ncompoundable, whereas offence under section 498-A RPC is non-\n\ncompoundable.5. Law is well settled that if the parties have settled their disputes\n\namicably, then the criminal proceedings whether arising out of private\n\ncomplaint or out of FIR for commission of offences under sections 498-A can\n\nbe quashed, notwithstanding the fact that the section 498-A RPC is non-\n\ncompoundable. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case,\n\ntitled, Jatinder Raghuvanshi and ors. V. Babita Raghuvanshi and anr.\n\n2013 (4) SCC 58, in which it has been held that even if, the offences are non\n\ncompoundable, if they are relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is3 CRM(M) No. 249/2022satisfied that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and without any\n\npressure, thensection 320of the Code would not be a bar to the exercising of\n\npower of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.\n\n(See also the State of Madhya Pardesh V. Laxmi Narayan (2019)5 SCC688).6. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the contesting\n\nparties, challan/charge sheet bearing file No. 150/Challan, arising out of FIR\n\nNo. 26/2019 for commission of offences under Section 498-A/506 RPC,\n\npending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda and the\n\nproceedings emanating therefore, if any, are quashed.7. Disposed of.(RAJNESH OSWAL)\n JUDGE\n\nJammu\n17.04.2023\nKaram Chand/Secy. |
fa8e79c8-092c-5f17-8e78-8ef5ff166685 | court_cases | Madhya Pradesh High CourtRam Kishan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2022Author: Sushrut Arvind DharmadhikariW.P. No.14790/2022\n 1\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n AT JABALPUR\n BEFORE\n HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI\n ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022\n WRIT PETITION No. 14790 of 2022\n BETWEEN:-\n RAM KISHAN PATEL S/O LATE SHRI\n ISHWARDAYAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT\n 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER\n RESIDENCE OSHO ASHRAM VILLAGE\n GOTEGAON TEHSIL GOTEGAON\n DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n .....PETITIONER\n (BY MS. SANTOSH BANSAL- ADVOCATE)\n AND\n1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY\n HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH\n BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,\n POLICE HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL\n DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n3. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE,\n JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.)\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n4. POLICE STATION MADHOTAL,\n THROUGH ITS STATION HOUSE\n OFFICER DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.)\n W.P. No.14790/2022\n 2\n\n\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n5. OM PRAKASH MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI\n VISHWANATH DATT MISHRA, AGED\n ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SHAHTRI\n CHOWK, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n6. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA S/O LATE\n SHRI VISHWANATH DATT MISHRA,\n AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SHAHTRI\n CHOWK, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n7. SMT. UMADEVI MISHRA W/O LATE\n SHRI VISHWANATH DATT MISHRA,\n AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SHAHTRI\n CHOWK, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n8. JAY RAKASH MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI\n VISHWANATH DATT MISHRA, AGED\n ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SHAHTRI\n CHOWK, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n9. OM PRAKASH MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI\n VISHWANATH DATT MISHRA, AGED\n ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O 252, AGHORI\n BABA, TRIMURTI NAGAR (MADHYA\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n10. M. GOPAL REDDY, CHAIRMAN OF\n REVENUE BOARD GWALIOR (MADHYA\n W.P. No.14790/2022\n 3\n\n\n PRADESH)\n\n\n\n11. YOGESH PATEL S/O LATE SHRI\n HARVANSH PATEL R/O VILLAGE\n GUDGAWA, TEHSIL PANAGAR\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n12. PRADEEP PATEL S/O LATE SHRI TRAM\n KUMAR PATEL R/O VILLAGE MURRAI,\n TEHSIL PATAN (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n13. MESARS SUNRISE BUILDERS,\n THROUGH ITS PARTNER ROHIT\n TIWARI S/O LATE SHRI PRAMOD\n TIWARI R/O 1601, NEAR RADHA TIWARI\n ,KRISHNA MANDIR, SHAHTRI NAGAR,\n GARHA (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n14. MESARS SUNRISE BUILDERS\n THROUGH ITS PARTNER AMBER\n DUBEY S/O LATE SUBODH KUMAR\n DUBEY R/O A-6, KACHHNAR CITY,\n MODEL TOWN, VIJAY NAGAR\n (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n15. MESARS REGAL ASSOCIATES\n THROUGH ITS PARTNER PANKAJ\n TIWARI S/O LATE PRAMOD PANKAJ\n TIWARI R/O 1601, NEAR RADHA TIWARI\n ,KRISHNA MANDIR, SHAHTRI NAGAR,\n GARHA (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n16. MANOHAR GUPTA S/O CHAKODILAL\n GUPTA R/O OM NAGAR, CHITRANJAN\n W.P. No.14790/2022\n 4\n\n\n DAS WARD (MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\n\n .....RESPONDENTS\n\n ( SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE\n FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)\n (SHRI BRIAN DA'SILVA- SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI\n ABHIJEET AWASTHI- ADVOCATE FOR THE CAVEATOR)\n\n This petition coming on for admission this day, the court\n\npassed the following:\n\n ORDERThe present petition, underArticle 226of the Constitution of\n\nIndia has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following\n\nreliefs:-"(i) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to\n direct to respondent no.(1) to (4) call the\n entire record regarding Annexure P-1 to\n Annexure P-12 for perusal of this\n Hon'ble court.(ii) Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to give\n the direction to respondent no.1 to 4 to\n register an offence u/s 420, 467, 468,\n 469, 471, 120B ofIPCand take\n appropriate steps against the respondent\n no.5 to 16 in the interest of justice.(iii) Any other reliefs, which deems fit and\n proper be also awarded in favour of the\n petitioner."2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is\n\naggrieved by inaction of the respondents No.1 to 4 in not registering\n\nthe FIR against respondents No.5 to 16. In this regard, petitioner has\n W.P. No.14790/20225preferred a representation (Annexure P/12) for registering the FIR\n\nagainst respondents No.5 to 16 but no action whatsoever has been\n\ntaken thereupon. As such, the instant petition has been filed.3. Per contra learned Government Advocate for the\n\nrespondents/State as well as learned senior counsel appearing for the\n\ncaveator contend that the relief prayed in this petition cannot be\n\ngranted to the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner is having an\n\nalternative efficacious remedy of filing complaint before the\n\nMagistrate undersection 156(3)of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that\n\nit is well settled that disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into\n\nby this Court inArticle 226of the Constitution of India. As such, the\n\npresent petition is liable to dismissed at the threshold.4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.5. In the case ofSakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others((2008)2 SCC 409) has held as under:-11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a\n grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR underSection 154Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of\n Police underSection 154(3)Cr.P.C. by an application in writing.Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that\n either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it\n no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person\n to file an application underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C. before the\n learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application underSection\n 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the\n FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be\n made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no\n proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the\n W.P. No.14790/20226same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper\ninvestigation.13. The same view was taken by this Court inDilawar Singh vs.\nState of Delhi JT2007 (10) SC 585 (vide para 17). We would\nfurther clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if\nthe police has made the investigation, or is actually making the\ninvestigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such\na person can approach the Magistrate underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper\ninvestigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order\norders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.\nAll these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.14.Section 156(3) states:"Any Magistrate empowered underSection 190may\n order such an investigation as abovementioned."The words as abovementioned obviously refer toSection 156(1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge\n of the Police Station.15.Section 156(3)provides for a check by the Magistrate on\n the police performing its duties under Chapter XIICr.P.C. In\n cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done\n its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it\n satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the\n investigation properly, and can monitor the same.16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation\n underSection 156(3)is an independent power, and does not\n affect the power of the investigating officer to further\n investigate the case even after submission of his report videSection 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of\n the investigation even after the police submits the final report,\n videState of Bihar vs. A.C. SaldannaAIR 1980 SC 326 (para19).17. In our opinionSection 156(3)Cr.P.C. is wide enough to\n include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary\n for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power\n to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper\n investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper\n investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the\n police.Section 156(3)Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our\n opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental\n powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of\n the view that althoughSection 156(3)is verybriefly worded,\n there is an implied power in the Magistrate underSection\n 156(3)Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and\n /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police\n W.P. No.14790/20227station to hold a proper investigation and take all such\n necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper\n investigation including monitoring the same. Even though\n these powers have not been expressly mentioned inSection\n 156(3)Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in\n the above provision.27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has\n very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to\n ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can\n monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is\n done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The\n High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ\n petition or petition underSection 482Cr.P.C. simply because\n a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered\n by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation\n has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the\n remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the\n concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under\n Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a\n criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by\n filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a\n writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an\n alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily\n interfere.(Emphasis supplied)6. Recently the Apex Court in the case of M.Subramaniam Vs.\n\nS. Janaki (Cr.A. No.102 of 2011) decided on 20/3/2020, has held as\n\nunder:-6. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao\n Tambe v. Hent Dhage mant Yashwaand Others ((2016)6 SCC277), in which it is observed."2. This Court has held inSakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if\n a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered\n by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation\n is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is\n not to go to the High Court underArticle 226of the\n Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate\n concerned underSection 156(3)CrPC. If such an application\n underSection 156(3)CrPC is made and the Magistrate is,\n prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered,\n or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper\n investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he\n W.P. No.14790/20228deems it necessary, recommending change of the\n investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in\n the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because\n what we have found in this country is that the High Courts\n have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration\n of the first information report or praying for a proper\n investigation.3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such\n writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ\n petitions and will not be able to do any other work except\n dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the\n complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach\n the Magistrate concerned underSection 156(3)CrPC and if\n he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is\n satisfied, registration of the first information report and also\n ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also\n monitor the investigation.4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the\n impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained\n and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed\n to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence underSection 156(3)CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also\n recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the\n investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done.\n The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he\n cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the\n police). Parties may produce any material they wish before\n the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be\n uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the\n High Court."(Emphasis supplied)7. In congruence with the aforesaid well settled position, a\n\nDivision Bench of this Court has taken a similar view in the case of\n\nShweta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. & others (2017 (1) MPLJ\n\n(Cri) 338)).8. In view of the legal conspectus on the point in issue, as cited\n\nabove, since the petitioner has rushed to this Court without availing\n\nthe alternative efficacious remedy as envisaged under theCr.P.C.,\n W.P. No.14790/20229this writ petition cannot be entertained and is, accordingly,\n\n dismissed.9. However, if the petitioner approaches the Magistrate concerned\n\nunder the provisionsof the Codeof Criminal Procedure, the\n\nMagistrate concerned shall proceed in accordance with law including\n\nthe precedents enumerated hereinabove.(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)\n JUDGE\nashish\nDigitally signed by ASHISH\nKUMAR LILHARE\nDate: 2022.09.26 17:40:05\n+05'30' |
018f2105-aeb6-5b4a-afd0-daa677ba3da3 | court_cases | Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi\nAcit, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., New Delhi on 2 March, 2021\n INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n DELHI BENCH " A ": NEW DELHI\n (Through Video Conferencing)\n\n BEFORE\n SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n AND\n SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\n\n\n ITA Nos. 602, 603, 604/Del/2018\n Asstt. Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15\n\n\n ACIT, Circle -5(1), Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd.\n New Delhi. 415-417,\n Antriksh Bhawan,\n Connaught Place,\n New Delhi - 110 001\n PAN AAACM0037G\n (Appellant) (Respondent)\n\n\n Department by: Shri Shiv Swaroop Singh, Sr. DR\n Assessee by : None\n Date of Hearing 02/03/2021\n Date of 02/03/2021\n pronouncement\n\n\n\n ORDER\n\nPER R.K. PANDA, AM\n The above three appeals filed by the Revenue are directed\n\nagainst the separate orders dated 23rd October, 2017 of the Ld.\n\nCIT (A) -2, New Delhi relating to assessment years 2012-13,\n 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. For the sake of convenience,\n\nall these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of\n\nby this common order.\n\n2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the\n\ntax effect involved in the grounds raised by the revenue in each of\n\nthe appeal is below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the CBDT\n\nCircular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, the appeals filed by\n\nthe revenue are not maintainable and, therefore, the appeals are\n\nliable to be dismissed.\n\n3. Ld. DR fairly conceded that the tax effect involved in the\n\ngrounds raised by the revenue is admittedly below Rs. 50 lakhs in\n\neach appeal.\n\n4. After hearing both the sides, we find the tax effect involved in\n\nthe grounds raised by the revenue in all the above three appeals\n\nis admittedly below Rs. 50 lakhs. CBDT vide circular No.\n\n17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 has increased the monetary\n\nlimit for filing of appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 50 lakhs. It has\n\nsubsequently been clarified by the CBDT that the said circular is\n\napplicable even to pending appeals. In view of the above, the\n\n\n\n\n 2\n appeals filed by the revenue are not maintainable and are\n\naccordingly dismissed.\n\n\nIn the result all the three appeals filed by the revenue are\n\ndismissed.\n\n\n Order pronounced in the open court at time of hearing\n\nitself i.e. on 2nd March, 2021.\n\n\n sd/- sd/-\n\n (KULDIP SINGH) (R.K. PANDA)\n JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nDated: 02 /03/2021\nVeena\nCopy forwarded to\n 1. Applicant\n 2. Respondent\n 3. CIT\n 4. CIT (A)\n 5. DR:ITAT\n ASSISTANT REGISTRAR\n ITAT, New Delhi\n\n\n\n\n 3 |
1c46a890-6cf2-53a9-a402-3716584ada8d | court_cases | Jammu & Kashmir High CourtSakina Bano And Anr vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors on 12 February, 2020S. No. 122\n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR\n AT JAMMU\n\n WP(C) No. 428/2020\n CM No. 948/2020\n\n\nSakina Bano and anr. ...Petitioner(s)\n\n Through :- Mr. Vijeta Parihar, Advocate\n\n v/s\n\nUnion Territory of J&K and ors. ...Respondent(s)\n\n Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG\n\n\nCoram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE\n\n ORDER1. The petitioners seek a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to provide\n\nthem the police protection as they apprehend danger to their lives from\n\nrespondent nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that the petitioners are major and out\n\nof their free will they got married. Copy of Nikah Nama has been placed on\n\nrecord. They submit that since they have contracted the marriage against the\n\nwishes of respondent nos. 4 and 5, as such, they are facing harassment at the\n\nhands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the decision of the\n\nSupreme Court inLata Singh v. State of U.P. and anr.; 2006 (5) SCC 475,\n\nand submits that in absence of there being any legal impediment, the\n\npetitioners are entitled to marry according to their choice and the official\n\nrespondents are duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.3. Any person having attained the age of majority is entitled to\n\ncontract the marriage as per his/her wishes and the police department is duty2 WP(C) No. 428/2020bound to protect the life and liberty, if approached. However, it appears that\n\n the petitioners have not ever approached the official respondents for their\n\n indulgence in the matter for providing protection to them.4. In this view of matter, this petition is disposed of, at this stage,\n\n by providing that respondents 1 to 3 shall look into the grievance of the\n\n petitioners for providing them adequate security and to ensure that nobody\n\n interferes in married life of the petitioners, if the petitioners approach them.\n\n It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed with regard to the age of\n\n the petitioners or with regard to the validity of their marriage, and the police\n\n is free to take a view on the basis of the available material and inquiry. If it\n\n is found that the parties are major and have married out of their own free\n\n will and consent, the necessary protection shall be extended to them.\n\n Disposed of.(SANJEEV KUMAR)\n JUDGE\n\n Jammu\n 12.02.2020\n Angita\n\n\n\n\nANGITA DEVI\n2020.02.13 11:13\nI attest to the accuracy and\nintegrity of this document |
a8ad7ad9-8c7c-5e47-8489-a972d5eee98d | court_cases | Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar BenchHaji Hilal Mehmood Dar vs Waheeda Mir & Others on 8 April, 2022Author:Sanjay DharBench:Sanjay DharIN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND\n AT SRINAGAR\n\n Reserved on: 04.04.2022\n Pronounced on:08.04.2022\n\n\n CRMC No.274/2017\n\n\nHAJI HILAL MEHMOOD DAR ... PETITIONER(S)\n\n Through: - Mr. Mehraj-ud-din Kathu, Advocate.\n\nVs.\n\nWAHEEDA MIR & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)\n Through: - Mr. Ateeb Kanth, Advocate\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE\n\n\n JUDGMENT1) The petitioner has challenged the proceedings under the\n\nprovisions of the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence\n\nActpending against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class\n\n(City Munsiff), Srinagar. The petitioner has also challenged orders dated\n\n01.11.2017, 23.01.2017 and 04.07.2016 passed by the learned trial court\n\nin the aforesaid proceedings that have been initiated by respondent No.1\n\nagainst him.2) It emerges from the record that respondent No.1, who happens to\n\nbe the wife of the petitioner, has filed a petition in terms of the J&K\n\nProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Actagainst the petitioner\n\nalleging commission of acts of domestic violence by the petitioner2 CRMC No.274/2017against her. In the complaint filed before the learned trial court, the\n\nrespondent No.1 has prayed that the petitioner herein be restrained from\n\nevicting or dispossessing her from the residential house situated at Khan\n\nColony, Chanapora, Srinagar and he be also restrained from entering into\n\nthe said house. A further prayer prohibiting the petitioner herein from\n\ncommitting the acts of domestic violence and to handover back the\n\njewellery and other precious items to the petitioner, has also been made.3) It seems that the learned trial Magistrate, after considering the\n\nobjections filed by the petitioner herein and after hearing the parties,\n\npassed order dated 04.07.2016, whereby the petitioner has been\n\nrestrained from dispossessing respondent No.1 from her house bearing\n\nNo.31-A situated at Chanapora. A further direction has been issued to\n\nthe petitioner herein not to enter into the said house and not to commit\n\nthe acts of domestic violence on the respondents. The petitioner has been\n\nfurther asked to restore back the golden ornaments and other valuables\n\nto the respondent No.1 within a period of two months and he has also\n\nbeen directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/ to the\n\nrespondent No.1.4) It appears that the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate came\n\nto be challenged by the petitioners herein by way of an appeal in terms\n\nofSection 29of the Domestic Violence Act before the Court of learned\n\n2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The appeal came to be\n\ndismissed vide order dated 23.12.2016 on the ground that the same is\n\nbarred by limitation.3 CRMC No.274/20175) The record further reveals that the petitioner had filed an\n\napplication for modification of order dated 24.07.2016 passed by the\n\nlearned Magistrate but the said application also came to be dismissed by\n\nthe learned Magistrate in terms of his order dated 07.06.2017. It also\n\nappears from the record that the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate\n\nwas challenged by the petitioner herein by way of an appeal before the\n\nlearned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, but the said appeal was\n\ndismissed on merits by the said Court in terms of order dated 19.08.2017.\n\nIt also emerges from the record that two orders, one dated 23.01.2017\n\nand another dated 01.11.2017, have been passed by the learned trial\n\nMagistrate in the execution proceedings arising out of order dated\n\n04.07.2016. Both these orders are also under challenge before this Court\n\nin these proceedings under Section 561-A of J&K Cr. P. C.6) It has been contended by the petitioner that the impugned orders\n\nhave been passed in gross violation of the law, more particularly in\n\nviolation ofSection 23of the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner has\n\nmade allegations of tampering in order dated 04.07.2016 and he has also\n\nmade personal allegations against the learned Presiding Officer. It has\n\nbeen submitted that the petitioner has already approached the Registrar\n\nVigilance of the High Court by way of a complaint in this regard. It is\n\nfurther contended that the respondent No.1 has, while lodging the FIR\n\nNo.113/2016 for offences under Section 354, 506, 379 RPC against the\n\npetitioner, admitted that she has dissolved her marriage with the\n\npetitioner and if that is so, the proceedings initiated by her against the4 CRMC No.274/2017petitioner under the provisions of theProtection of Women from\n\nDomestic Violence Actcannot be sustained.7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record\n\nof the case.8) As already noted, vide the impugned order dated 04.07.2016, the\n\nlearned trial Magistrate has, after hearing the parties, passed a detailed\n\norder issuing certain directions against the petitioner herein including an\n\norder restraining him from entering the house where the respondent is\n\nresiding. A direction for interim maintenance and a direction asking the\n\npetitioner not to inflict the acts of domestic violence upon the respondent\n\nhave also been passed. The said order has been challenged by the\n\npetitioner before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar,\n\nwithout any success.9) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the\n\nimpugned order has been pre-dated by making a tampering therein, as a\n\nresult of which he could not file an appeal within the prescribed period\n\nof limitation on account of unrest which took place in Kashmir Valley in\n\nthe year 2016. This is an issue which cannot be gone into in these\n\nproceedings. The petitioner has already made a complaint before the\n\nRegistrar Vigilance of this Court and whether the order has been\n\ntampered with or not and if so, who has tampered with it, is a subject\n\nmatter of enquiry before the Registrar Vigilance as per the own showing\n\nof the petitioner. Even otherwise, these grounds were taken by the\n\npetitioner in his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal5 CRMC No.274/2017before the Appellate Court but the same did not find favour with the said\n\nCourt. The order of the Appellate Court has not been assailed by the\n\npetitioner and, as such, the same has acquired finality. Without laying\n\nany challenge to the order of the Appellate Court, it is not open to this\n\nCourt to review the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court.\n\nEven otherwise, the petitioner's attempt to seek modification of the\n\nimpugned order dated 04.07.2016 has also met with no success as the\n\nlearned Magistrate has, vide order dated 07.06.2017, refused to modify\n\nthe impugned order dated 04.07.2016. The appeal against the said order\n\nhas also been dismissed and the order passed by the Appellate Court has\n\nnot been assailed by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated\n\n04.07.2016 and the order rejecting the prayer for its modification both\n\nhave acquired finality and, as such, the same cannot be interfered with in\n\nthese proceedings.10) So far as the orders dated 01.11.2017 and 23.01.2017 are\n\nconcerned, the same have been passed by the learned Magistrate in\n\nfurtherance of execution of order dated 04.07.2016. Vide the aforesaid\n\norders, directions have been issued to the DDO of the petitioner to deduct\n\nthe amount of monthly maintenance from his salary. It was well within\n\nthe jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to pass such orders, particularly\n\nwhen the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount of maintenance\n\ngranted in terms of order dated 04.07.2016. Thus, no fault can be found\n\nwith the aforesaid two orders passed by the learned Magistrate in the6 CRMC No.274/2017execution proceedings. The same do not deserve to be interfered with by\n\nthis Court in these proceedings.11) Lastly, it has been contended by the petitioner that the then learned\n\nSub-Registrar was having some personal affiliation with the respondents\n\nand on account of this, he has passed the impugned orders. In this regard,\n\nit is to be noted that the petitioner has himself admitted that he had filed\n\na criminal transfer application seeking transfer of petition filed underProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Actfrom the Court of\n\nJudicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Sub Registrar), Srinagar, to the Court of\n\nCity Munsiff, Srinagar, or any other Court of competent jurisdiction and\n\nvide order dated 31.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions\n\nJudge, Srinagar, the case has been transferred from the Court of Judicial\n\nMagistrate, 1st Class (Sub-Registrar), Srinagar, to the Court of Judicial\n\nMagistrate, 1st Class (City Munsiff), Srinagar. The orders passed by the\n\nCourt of Sub Registrar, Srinagar, which are under challenge in these\n\nproceedings, relate back to the year 2017 and by now several Presiding\n\nOfficers have changed positions in the said Court. Therefore, even if\n\npetitioner had any apprehension as regards the impartiality of the\n\nPresiding Officer of the relevant time, the same does not survive as of\n\ntoday.12) So far as the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has\n\nadmitted that she has been divorced by him is concerned, it is open to the\n\npetitioner to raise this contention before the learned trial Magistrate by\n\nplacing on record the documents relevant to the issue during the trial of7 CRMC No.274/2017the main petition whereafter the learned Magistrate shall, after\n\nconsidering the case on its merits, pass appropriate orders in the main\n\npetition.13) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition.\n\nThe same is, accordingly, dismissed.14) A copy of this order be sent to the learned Magistrate for\n\ninformation and compliance.(Sanjay Dhar)\n Judge\nSrinagar\n08.04.2022\n"Bhat Altaf, PS"Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No\n Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.