Himachal Pradesh High Court imposes cost for filing frivolous plea

Seniority of physical education teachers was challenged

Himachal Pradesh High Court imposes cost for filing frivolous plea

Taking serious note on filing a frivolous petition, the HP High Court imposed Rs 1.20 lakh cost on three petitioners.

Vijay Arora

Shimla, November 24

Taking serious note on filing a frivolous petition, the HP High Court imposed Rs 1.20 lakh cost on three petitioners.

While dismissing the petition challenging the seniority list of the physical education teachers, a division bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya observed that “the petitioners have resorted to misadventure and despite their own appointments being in contravention to the rules have unnecessarily dragged the private respondents to this litigation.”

“We not only do not find any merit in this petition, but we are of the considered view that the petitioners have abused the process of law in filing such frivolous litigation and the same is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs 1,20,000 to be paid equally by the petitioners to the 12 private respondents Rs 10,000 each, within a period of 90 days,” the bench held.

The court passed this order on a petition filed by three physical education teachers challenging the seniority list of the physical education teachers prepared by the Education Department where the private respondents (teachers) were shown seniors to the petitioners.

It is contended by the petitioners that even though the date of appointment of all the petitioners as well as private respondents as physical education teachers has been shown as June, 24,1997, the private respondents have been shown to be seniors though the private respondents actually were appointed in September, 1997.

The private respondents contended before the court that the appointment of the petitioners is a backdoor entry as the recruitment and promotion rules clearly prescribe the recruitment to the post of DPEs (School Cadre) through Public Service Commission and all the private respondents have in fact been appointed by the Public Service Commission, whereas, the petitioners have simply been appointed by the department which is illegal.

Rejecting the plea, the bench observed that “the private respondents have been appointed on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, whereas, the petitioners have been appointed by the department. The appointment of the petitioners is clearly in contravention of the rules. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to assail the appointment of the private respondents, who have been appointed strictly in accordance with the rules”.

Tribune Shorts


Top Stories

India’s first Omicron cases: One is South African, second a local doctor with no travel history

India’s first Omicron cases: One is South African, second a local doctor with no travel history

Five contacts of doctor also test positive and their samples...

India's first two Omicron cases detected in Karnataka, says government

India's first two Omicron cases detected in Karnataka

Govt says need not panic about Omicron detection but awarene...

Supreme Court slams Delhi govt over ‘Red Light On, Gaadi Off’ campaign

Supreme Court sets 24-hour deadline for govt to come up with concrete measures on air pollution

Bench hints at setting up task force; pulls up Delhi govt fo...

Delhi schools to be closed from Friday till further orders due to pollution

Delhi schools to be closed till further orders due to pollution

The decision comes after the Supreme Court on Thursday pulls...

Cities

View All