Himachal Pradesh High Court imposes cost for filing frivolous plea

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”.