Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 367 (HP)

RAM LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2003-12-11

NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2003
JUDGMENT : In the present Original Application, the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:- (i) That the appointment of respondent No.5 as Gram Vidya Upasak may be quashed and set-aside, (ii) That the respondents may be directed to make the appointment against the post of Gram Vidya Upasak on the basis of Selection done by the authorities and the applicant, who is eligible and entitled for appointment be given appointment forthwith as Gram Vidya Upasak. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case for perusal of this Forum (iv) That the respondents may be directed to pay the cost of this Original Application throughout and (v) Any other order deemed just and proper by this Tribunal in view of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned hereinabove may also be passed in favour of the applicant against the respondents." 2. The applicant is aggrieved by the selection of Ms. Meena Kumari, respondent No.5 as Vidya Upasak in Govt. Primary School, Chaniyari Distt. Solan which has resulted in deprivation of the applicant for appointment as Vidya Upasak. 3. Reply has been filed by the respondents. The respondent State in its reply has stated that in the present Original Application, the applicant has challenged the selection of respondent No.5 as Vidya Upasak in Govt. Primary School, Chinayari Block Ramshahar, Distt. Solan. The instant application is totally wrong and misconceived. It is further submitted that the selection of the respondent No.5 has been made on the recommendation of the duly constituted committee for the purpose under the Chairmanship of the S.D.O. (C) of the area concerned as provide under the instructions/ guide fines issued by the State Govt. known as Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna, 2001 and as such the assertion of the applicant is based on wrong facts and information as is evident from the reply. It is further submitted that the Selection Committee headed by the S.D.O. (Civil) as its Chairman and four other members, Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat, Block Primary Education Officer and Center Head Teacher of the center concerned of the respective Block scrutinized the application received in response to the vide publicity and awarded the marks on the basis of documents submitted by the candidates and as per the notification issued by the Govt. in this regard. in this regard. On the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee, the candidate securing the higher marks has been appointed. In the instant case, the applicant and respondent No.5 has obtained the marks as under: - Applicant. +2 marks Graduate Certificate/Local S.C Physical IRDP Viva- (a dual and above Diploma in Resident Handicapped % age) Education, (within Panchayat) 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 28.2 10 - _ 5 - 7 Total:- 50.2 Respondent No. 5 26.7 10 - 10 - - 9 Total:- 55.7 Since, the respondent No. 5 has secured 55.7 marks and the applicant 50.2 marks, therefore, the respondent No. 5 has been offered appointment on the recommendation of the Selection Committee in accordance with the instructions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the private party and have gone through the pleadings very carefully. Record has been produced by the respondents which has been perused by me. There is a certificate in the record which has been issued by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Berunkri in which it has been mentioned that Smt Meena Kumari, respondent No. 5 D/o Sh. Dina Nath S/O Sh. Devi Ram is the permanent resident of village Sanog, Sub Tehsil Ramsehar, Distt. Solan H.P. This certificate has been issued by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Bhiunkhari and on the basis of this certificate, the respondent No. 5 got 10 marks. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon Annexure A-10 and Annexure A-11. From Annexure A-10, it is clear that Ms. Meena Kumari who belonged to village Sanog had shifted long back to another panchayat by their forefathers and for this reason, this certificate had been issued which has been mentioned in the Annexure A-10. So far as Annexure A-11 is concerned, it is un-dated. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has cited a case law reported in 1990 (1) SCC 305 titled as Dalapat Abasahe Solunka Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan in which the Honble Apex Court has held that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Dr. B.S. Mahajan in which the Honble Apex Court has held that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee, which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved malafides affecting the selection etc. 6. It has been observed by the Honble Apex Court in JT 1997 (4) S.C. 642 titled as Durga Devi and Anr. Vs. State of HP & Ors. In which it has been mentioned that the selection of the appellants was quashed by the Tribunal by itself scrutinizing the comparative merits of the candidates and fitness for the post as if the Tribunal was sitting as an appellate authority over the Selection Committee. The selection of the candidates was not quashed on any other ground. The Tribunal fell in error in arrogating to itself the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and consider the fitness and suitability for appointment. That was the function of the Selection Committee. As such, this case is fully covered byte h judgments referred to above. 7. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present Original Application and the same is dismissed. Interim order passed on September 27, 2002 is hereby vacated.