HARINDER PAL CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29th June, 2001 rejecting the O.A. No. 584 of 1998 preferred before Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal -) challenging the validity of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non -Technical Services) rules 1972 (in short called Rules 1972) and the Rules 5(1) of the said Rules 1972 as well as challenging the fixation of seniority granted to respondents No. 4 to 21 and further prayer seeking direction to State authorities to redraw a fresh seniority list of school cadre lecturers and to consider the petitioner to the post of Principal on the basis of such seniority list drawn.

(2.) AFTER taking into consideration the averments and the contentions advanced by the petitioners herein and the rival contentions advanced by the private respondents No. 4 to 21 as well as the submissions of the State, learned Tribunal has observed that the above mentioned ˜Rules 1972 have been made in order to give the benefit of approved military service to the ex -servicemen on joining new government jobs and to encourage the young persons to join the military services and treating the said rules as the policy has not interfered into it and the Original Application of the petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) AS argued by Mr.Vikram Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the decision of Hon;ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others 1997(3) SCC 261, the legislative competence of any Act or Rules challenged before the Tribunal could be tested by the Division Bench of learned Tribunal as the Tribunals are created under Articles 323 -A and Article 323 -B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. To strengthen his arguments, Mr.Vikram Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the relevant paragraph -99 of L.Chandra Kumars case (supra) extracted below: