The Himachal Pradesh High Court today quashed and set aside the re-employment of Dr Pradeep Kumar Sharma on the post of Director, Animal Husbandry, on the recommendation of the minister concerned.
While passing the order, a Division Bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed that “re-employment can only be made in public interest. The state has to consider the need for re-employment in the larger public interest as well as the department and its decision ought not to be sponsored by private or political interests.”
The court stated that “the government is obliged to balance the need for re-employment in public interest on the one hand and its obligation to consider the cases of other eligible candidates or their non-availability on the other. This approach alone will be in accordance with the specific instructions issued by the government itself. The decision of the government to re-employ a servant, thus, must stand the acid test of the dual criteria aforementioned.”
It said that “extension in service/re-employment is only to be made under exceptional circumstances, whereas the instant case is one ‘spoil system’, as re-employment has been made illegally. Merely because recommendation has come from an elected representative will not justify the extension/re-employment in the absence of satisfaction recorded.”
The court passed the judgment on two petitions challenging the notification issued by the state on January 2, 2025, whereby Pradeep Kumar Sharma was re-employed as Director, Animal Husbandry. The petitioners contended that while granting re-employment, the state did not follow the provisions of law.
As per the facts of the case, one of the petitioners, Vishal Sharma, had superannuated on January 31, 2025, and could be considered for appointment to the post of Director, had the post been filled in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Likewise, the other petitioner is still continuing in service and falls in the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Director.
While allowing the petitions, the court observed that “the sole ground for extension/re-employment was the recommendation of the minister concerned, upon which the Chief Minister had approved a six-month re-employment. Prior to that, the department had not processed the file. Therefore, once the Chief Minister had taken a decision, 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 Bench observed that “the state admittedly did not consider at all whether other eligible candidates were available in the department. This attitude of the state certainly tilts the balance of equality and administrative exigencies towards private/individual interest rather than public interest.” The court directed the state to convene a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post of Director.
