Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 316 (HP)

SATYA DEVI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2004-12-01

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2004
JUDGEMENT The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated September 4, 2002 appointing respondent No.5 and ignoring his claim for appointment as a Water Carrier. Therefore, he has filed this Original Application seeking following reliefs:- "7.1) That the provision of 7 friaries for Interview in the notification at Annexure A-1 may kindly be quashed and set aside and by restricting the marks to 12.5°A the result of interview may be directed to be re-caste; 7.2) That the appointment and selection of respondent No.5 as Water Carrier in Government Primary School Sarosh may kindly be quashed; 7.3) That if no perusal of the records if it is found that applicant is entitled to be recommended for appointment against the post in question In that even she may be directed to be appointed as Water Carrier with all consequential benefits from the date from which respondent No.5 is so appointed with all consequential benefits; 7.4) That the respondent department may be directed to produce the records pertaining to this case before Ms Honble Tribunal; 7.5) Any other relief deemed proper in the circumstances may also be granted and 7.6) Costs of the application may also be awarded." 2. The respondents No.1 to 3 and 4 have resisted the application by raising preliminary objections. 3. The consistent stand taken by respondents No. 1 to 3 is that the selection of respondent No.5 has been male 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 provided under the instruction/guidelines issued by the State Government regarding the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in the Education Department. As such the assertion of the applicant is based on wrong facts and information as is evident from the reply and as such is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The respondent No.4 has also justified the action of respondents for offering the appointment to respondent No.5. 4. We have heard Sh. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant Mrs. Abhilasha Kumari, teamed Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Smt Anjana Mohindroo, learned counsel appearing vice the original counsel for respondent No.4. 5. The substantive grievance of the applicant is that at the time of applying for the post of the Part Time Carrier, she has submitted the application along with the relevant documents. Abhilasha Kumari, teamed Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Smt Anjana Mohindroo, learned counsel appearing vice the original counsel for respondent No.4. 5. The substantive grievance of the applicant is that at the time of applying for the post of the Part Time Carrier, she has submitted the application along with the relevant documents. The detail of those documents Annexure S-1 are as under- (i) Handicapped Certificate; (ii) IRDP Certificate; (iii) Income Certificate; (iv) Character Certificate; (v) Himachal Certificate (vi) No employee Certificate; (vii) Distance Certificate; (viii) Date of Birth Certificate and (ix) Employment Exchange Certificate;" J I The applicant has not been awarded the marks under the category of "unemployed" as well as under the category of "donated laid* for the School." 6. The respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply to the Supplementary-affidavit admitted that the applicant had submitted the documents in the office of respondent No.3 i.e. Block Primary Education Officer, Sundernagar-I which were received in his office on June 13, 2002. It is also admitted that she had given 1-1-0 Bigha of land free of cost for the construction of new Primary School Building and as per certificate of Head Teacher of Government Primary School, Sarosh, applicant has given two rooms for the school aid one field where the children used to play. This admission on the part of respondents coupled with the fact that the land has been recorded in - the possession of Education Department is sufficient to establish the factum of donation. 7. The applicant therefore, wider die Policy annexed as Annexure A-1, was entitled to the marks under the Heading donating of land." 8. The Original record has been produced by the respondents. Under the Column donated tend for school, tie applicant has been awarded 5 marks. However, she has not been awarded marks under heading category belong to unemployed category. Though, she tad submitted documents Le IRDP Certificate, Income Certificate. No Employee Certificate etc. Apart from the, the applicant has specifically mentioned in her application that she belongs to IRDP Family having IR DP Mo. 8-25-25, and there is no member of her family in Government or Semi-Government employment 9. Thus. On the basis of these documents, the applicant was also entitled to 5 marks under the heading as per the Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure A-1. 8-25-25, and there is no member of her family in Government or Semi-Government employment 9. Thus. On the basis of these documents, the applicant was also entitled to 5 marks under the heading as per the Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure A-1. The total narks awarded to the applicant were 18 while the respondent No.5 has got 21 marks. If these 5 marks are added to the marks awarded to the applicant then, she will get higher marks that respondent No.5. l0. There is no doubt that the proposition of law is well settled that where there is a recommendation of expert body, such recommendations should not be interfered with by the Court, unless a very strong case has been made out of unfairness and partisanship as held m "Dr. Parijat De vs. Dr. Amendra Kumar Samaddar Chaudhary ors. (Calcutta), 2004 (3) SLR 211 (Calcutta) 11. In Durga Devi and Anr. Vs. State of HP, Ak 1997 (SC) 2618", it has been held that power to judge the comparative merit of candidates and fitness of posts is not to be looked Into Le. the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate Court and quash the selection by fee scrutinizing the comparative merits of the candidates it is also observed that 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 selection etc. 12. The patent material irregularity is writ large in this case, as the Selection Committee had omitted to award any mark to the applicant under the heading "category belonging to unemployed category." She had not only produced tie certificate showing her income, in fact, she had produced the IROP Certificate a besides the IROP number. 13. A above being the position, the Original Application is allowed. The appointment of respondent No.5 as Water Carrier is hereby set-aside. The respondents No.1 to 3 will be at liberty to hold fresh interview for the appointment of Water Carrier in accordance with the Policy formulated by the State. The Original Application stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.