Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 422 (HP)

MATHURA DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-11-14

M.R.VERMA, S.S.NEGI

body2005
ORDER M.R. Verma, J. (Retd.) Chairman: - In this original application, the applicant has claimed the following reliefs:- (i) That appointment of respondent No. 4 be quashed and set aside. (ii) That interview for the post of part time water carrier at Govt. Primary School, Jaterh, Anni Block, District Kullu H.P. be held afresh. - (iii) That the applicant be considered for appointment and in the event of fresh interview for the post of part time water carrier, be considered afresh. 2. Briefly stated, case of the applicant is that amongst others she appeared in the interview for selection of a Water Carrier to. be appointed in Government Primary School, Jaterh, Anni Block, District Kullu, H.P. Despite the fact that she belongs to a schedule caste and IRDP family and is living below poverty line and none from her family is employed and in as a widow she was not selected for the said job despite fulfilling the requisite criteria and such selection is vitiated because of the selection/appointment of respondent No. 4 being arbitrary and mala-fide by ignoring the conditions which were fulfilled by the applicant. 3. The respondents contested the claim. Their common primary objection is that the original application is not maintainable because respondent No. 4 has been selected by a duly constituted selection committee. On merits-, it has been denied for want of knowledge that the applicant belongs to schedule caste category. It has been asserted that the applicant has failed to produce the certificate of schedule caste at the time of interview. In the reply of respondents No. 1 to 3 the details of marks awarded by the selection committee to the applicant and the respondent No. 4 have been mentioned in para No. 3 showing that the applicant secured 22 marks whereas respondent No.4 secured marks. Thus, it is claimed that there is no illegality in the impugned selection and appointment. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Abilasha Kumari, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and have also gone through the records as also selection record as maintained by the concerned respondent which was especially ordered to be produced before this Tribunal. 5. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Abilasha Kumari, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and have also gone through the records as also selection record as maintained by the concerned respondent which was especially ordered to be produced before this Tribunal. 5. It may be pointed out at the very outset that when the selection record produced- before us on 28.10.2005 and the matter was heard for some time, some material document supporting the claim of respondent No. 4 was not found on the record and it was stated by Shayam Chand, Block Primary Education Officer, Anni that the entire record has not been produced, therefore, the matter was adjourned for production of the complete record on 8.11.2005. On this day a single leaf of paper purporting to be a photo copy of copy of caste certificate of respondent No. 4 not attested by any one was produced and placed on the record earlier produced. 6. The applicant claims to be belonging to the schedule caste and so is the claim of respondent No. 4. A perusal of the contents of para 3 (of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 clearly and unambiguously reveals that under the column meant for schedule caste, schedule tribe and O.B.C. entry Yes has been made in respect of the applicant. Similarly, in the case of respondent No. 4 under the same column entry Yes has been made. However, respondent No. 4 has been awarded 3 marks under this column but no marks have been awarded to the applicant. It is claimed that the applicant has failed to produce the caste certificate therefore, marks were not awarded to her. There is no explanation as to under what circumstances and why entry Yes has been made in the relevant column which necessarily implies that the applicant belonged to either of the three categories namely schedule caste, schedule tribe or O.B.C. Such averments in the reply could be made only when the respondents No. 1 to 3 were satisfied that the applicant belongs to either of the aforesaid categories. If so, there cannot be any reason for not awarding her requisite marks meant for the indicated category. 7. If so, there cannot be any reason for not awarding her requisite marks meant for the indicated category. 7. We entertain serious doubt about the production of any caste certificate by respondent No. 4 at the time of interview primarily for the reasons that had he produced any such certificate that would have been tagged with the file containing the record of the interview whereas it was not so. A document alleged to be such a document was subsequently produced by respondent No. 3 which document on the^ face of if is nothing more than a useless paper. It purports to be a photo copy and prima facie appears to have been prepared from some attested copy itself and is not attested or authenticated by any one. Such document apparently could not have been relied and taken into account. In all probabilities this document appears to have been prepared subsequently when during the hearing it was noticed that caste certificate of the respondent No. 4 was nowhere on record. In any case, even if such a document was on the record this document neither being original nor authenticated could not have been taken into account in support of the claim of respondent No. 4 that he belongs to schedule caste category. There is nothing on the record to show that respondent No. 4 produced the original caste certificate or authentic copy thereof to substantiate his claim that he belongs to a schedule caste. 8. It may also be pointed out that there is a specific averment in the application of the applicant for appointment as Water Carrier that she belongs to “a IRDP Harijan family" and is widow of late Shyam Dass and it is also mentioned at the foot of the application "that photo copies of the testimonials are attached herewith". The certificate which we found attached with this application are not all photo copies but only two of such documents seems to be photo copies whereas two certificates having been issued before the date of aforesaid endorsement are original documents. There is no contemporaneous record or nothing to show note that the application of the applicant was not accompanied by all the requisite certificates to support her averments as made in the application. 9. There is no contemporaneous record or nothing to show note that the application of the applicant was not accompanied by all the requisite certificates to support her averments as made in the application. 9. In these circumstances what clearly emerges is that the selection record is not properly maintained and was not duly considered at the time of selection. 10. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the impugned process of selection was not transparent and fair and is, therefore, vitiated. In view of the above conclusion, this original application is allowed and the impugned selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 as a Water Carrier are quashed and set aside with immediate effect. The respondents are directed to conduct interview for the post of water carrier in question afresh in accordance with the law and the prescribed procedure and initiate the process for such selection forthwith. The reliefs claimed in the application over and above the relief allowed hereinabove are dismissed.