Two petitioners, Vishal Sharma and Sanjeev Dhiman—both Joint Directors and contenders for the post of Director of Animal Husbandry—had challenged the government notification dated January 2, 2025, which granted re-employment to Dr. Sharma.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday set aside the re-employment of Director of Animal Husbandry, Dr. Pradeep Sharma, and ordered a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting.
Two petitioners, Vishal Sharma and Sanjeev Dhiman—both Joint Directors and contenders for the post of Director of Animal Husbandry—had challenged the government notification dated January 2, 2025, which granted re-employment to Dr. Sharma. They had sought a fresh DPC meeting. Dr. Sharma was due to retire on December 31, 2024, but was re-employed on the orders of Chief Minister Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu.
Advertisement
“…the sole ground for extension/re-employment was the recommendation of the Hon’ble Minister (Chander Kumar), upon which the Hon’ble Chief Minister (Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu) had already approved six months’ re-employment… Therefore, once a decision had already been taken by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who on earth, much less a ‘lesser mortal,’ could have bypassed the order? Obviously, such a decision had to be justified at all costs. The respondent-State admittedly did not at all consider whether other eligible candidates were available in the Department,” observed the division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja.
Advertisement
The judgment further stated, “Administrative orders of the present kind must serve a greater public interest. They must be passed on public grounds, and the said expression is of wide magnitude. It cannot have such a limited meaning that merely because a person is a Director, he must continue in the Department. More particularly, the provisions of Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personal Matters, Government of HP, which are mandatory, were required to be followed.”
The court also remarked, “It is well established that an extension in service or re-employment should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. However, the present case is one of the ‘spoils system,’ as the re-employment has been made illegally. Merely because the recommendation has come from an elected representative does not justify the extension/re-employment in the absence of recorded satisfaction.”
Advertisement
