Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 233 (HP)

SH. BASANT LAL v. STATE OF H. P.

2006-08-08

B.S.CHAUHAN, M.R.VERMA

body2006
JUDGEMENT B.S. Chauhan, Member (A):- This original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 feeling aggrieved by the impugned selection/appointment of respondents No.5 pursuant to interview held on 29.6.2002 for the post of Gram Vidya Upasak in GPS Kharu with prayer to set aside the same with the direction to appoint him in his place. 2. The case of the applicant in brief is that interview was held for the post of Gram Vidya Upasak for GPS Kharu Block Chopal in Gram Panchayat Deoth on 29.6.2002. The applicant also appeared in the said interview alongwith respondent No.5 among others. Following the selection process respondent No.5 was appointed as Gram Vidya Upasak. The applicant has challenged the selection of respondent No.5 on the ground that he does not belong to the Gram Panchayat Deoth and had produced wrong certificate of being resident of this Panchayat on the basis of which he was given weightage of 10 marks. His claim is that if these 10 marks are not counted in favour of respondent No.5 as he is resident of Gram Panchayat Khagna, then the applicant emerges as the next eligible candidate for appointment as Gram Vidya Upasak for GPS Kharu. Based on these facts the applicant has challenged the selection/appointment of respondent No.5 with the prayer to set aside the same. 3. Reply was filed by respondents No.1 to 3 in which the claim of the applicant was opposed. The main contention of the respondents is that the selection process for the post of Gram Vidya Upasak for GPS Kharu was in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and the marks awarded to respondent No.5 were also as per the relevant provisions of the scheme. 10 marks given to respondent No.5 for being resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth were also awarded according to the scheme and as per the documentary proof produced by him at the time of interview. 4. Supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of applicant in which some additional documentary proof and related facts were brought on record. It was reiterated in the affidavit that respondent No.5 is not resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth and he has been wrongly given 10 marks for claiming to be resident of said Panchayat. 4. Supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of applicant in which some additional documentary proof and related facts were brought on record. It was reiterated in the affidavit that respondent No.5 is not resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth and he has been wrongly given 10 marks for claiming to be resident of said Panchayat. It is further mentioned in the supplementary affidavit that the father of the applicant applied to the Executive Magistrate (Annexure A-2) for issuing certificate regarding the residence of respondent No.5. Subsequently on 3.8.2002 one certificate was issued by Halqua Patwari, Patwar Circle Deoth (Annexure A-3) in which it has been clearly mentioned that till the date of report no land in the name of respondent No.5 is there is Patwar Circle Deoth nor is he resident in the said Panchayat. As per Annexure A-4 annexed with the supplementary affidavit it has been clarified that as per Pariwar Register the father of respondent No.5 as also respondent No.5 himself had been shown as part the of family of one Karam Singh who is father in law of respondent No.5 This entry as per Pariwar Register has been got entered by father of the applicant Liak Ram on 29.2.2002 in Gram Panchayat Deoth by deleting the family from Gram Panchayat Khagna. It has been alleged that this entry has been made with a view to get the benefit of 10 marks by fabricating the record. Based on these facts the veracity of entries in the Pariwar Register and genuineness of the certificate has been challenged which is not based on factual position. 5. Reply was filed to the supplementary affidavit by respondent No.5 in which it has been mentioned that the mother of the applicant has inherited property from her father as her father had no sons but only daughter. The father of applicants mother late Karam Singh, belonged to village Beteori, Pargana Shantha, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla and his property was being managed bv the respondent No.5 through a general power of attorney. The claim of the respondent No.5 is that late Karam Singh had executed a will in favour of mother of the applicant in the year 2001. It is further claimed that the parents of the applicant had been managing the property of late Karam Singh even prior to the year 2001 and had been residing as such in village Beteori. The claim of the respondent No.5 is that late Karam Singh had executed a will in favour of mother of the applicant in the year 2001. It is further claimed that the parents of the applicant had been managing the property of late Karam Singh even prior to the year 2001 and had been residing as such in village Beteori. In support of his contention he had produced the entry made in the Pariwar Register of Gram Panchayat Deoth being resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth. Based on this the respondent No.5 has reiterated his claim as resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of applicant to the reply filed by respondent No.5, in which the position taken in reply was refuted and stand taken earlier in the original application was reaffirmed. In addition to this copy of Himachal Pradesh panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 (Annexure A-5) was also placed on record. Rule 21 of Himachal Pradesh panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 provides the procedure for making entry/changes in the Pariwar Register. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The record of Gram Panchayat Khagna as well as Deoth was produced which was carefully perused. 7. The only dispute in this original application relates to the issues whether the respondent No.5 is bona-fide resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth or not. This is crucial as 10 marks were awarded to him on account of being resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth resulting into his consequential selection. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the entry made in the pariwar register was changed from Gram Panchayat Khagna to Gram Panchayat Deoth with the sole motive to get the benefit of 10 marks and thereby get selection as Gram Vidya Upasak in GPS Kharu. Rule 21 of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 prescribes a procedure for making entry/change in the Pariwar Register. He contended that entries made in Gram Panchayat Deoth by deleting the respondent and his family from Gram Pancahayat Deoth by deleting the respondent and his family from Gram Panchayat Khagna was not in accordance with procedure laid down in Rule 21 of the above mentioned Rules and this being so the same is not in accordance with law. He relied upon the fact that late Karam Singh died on 13.6.2004 whereas interview was held on 29.6.2002. He relied upon the fact that late Karam Singh died on 13.6.2004 whereas interview was held on 29.6.2002. Any claim of respondents No.5 on the basis of will executed in his favour cannot take effect before the death of late Karam Singh. This being so respondent No.5 could not have claimed any benefit of being resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth on the basis of said will before the death of testator. On the basis of these arguments the learned counsel has stressed that the certificate relating to respondents No.5 being resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth is fabricated one and not justified as per law. In reply the learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for respondent No.5 defended the selection of respondent No.5. It was claimed that respondent No.5 is resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth as per entry made in the Pariwar Register and benefit of 10 marks was given to him as per certificate produced by him at the time of interview. The question regarding the certificate issued in favour of respondent No.5 being resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth is based on the entries made in the pariwar Register on 29.4.2002. The said entries made in the Pariwar Register Deoth clearly mentioned that the entries were deleted from Gram Panchayat Khagna and entries were made in Gram Panchayat Deoth. 8. In view of the above position and as per facts and circumstances of the case it is necessary to go into the question whether entries were made in accordance with Rules of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997. It is clearly provided in Rule 21 that these entries have to be made with the prior approval of authorities prescribed thereunder and the entries so made are required to be verified by the Panchayat Inspector. There is a procedure prescribed which necessarily is required to be followed before making any changes in the Pariwar Register. The perusal of record clearly reveals that the procedure as prescribed in Rule 21 has not been followed in the instant case and the entries made by the Gram Panchayat Avam Vikas Adhikari (Panchayat Secretary) are required to be verified by Panchayat Inspector which is not the position in the present case. 9. The perusal of record clearly reveals that the procedure as prescribed in Rule 21 has not been followed in the instant case and the entries made by the Gram Panchayat Avam Vikas Adhikari (Panchayat Secretary) are required to be verified by Panchayat Inspector which is not the position in the present case. 9. In view of this position we have come to the conclusion that the change of entries from Gram Panchayat Khagna to Gram Panchayat Deoth in respect of respondent No.5 and his family is not in accordance with law. In the light of above discussion the selection of respondent No.5 as Gram Vidya Upasak is not justified, as he was not entitled to avail the benefit of 10 marks given to him on account of his unlawful claim of being resident of Gram Panchayat Deoth. It is indisputable that the applicant is next in merit on the basis of marks obtained as per interview held on 29.6.2002. In view of this position, the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 is quashed and set aside and respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as Gram Vidya Upasak for GPS Kharu. The original application is disposed of in terms of above orders with no order as to costs.