Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 378 (HP)

KAMLESH KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2007-09-06

B.S.CHAUHAN, NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2007
JUDGMENT Narinder Thakur, Vice-Chairman.—The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying mainly for the following reliefs:— "(a) Quash the impugned order of selection and appointment of the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 whereby the respondents has selected the respondent Nos. 8 to 10, being issued arbitrarily, mala fide and illegally by the respondents; (b) Direct the respondents to select and appoint the applicant against the post of Vidya Upasak on the basis of merit for GPS Diswani, with all the consequential benefits." 2. The applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents whereby they have selected and appointed the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 as Vidya Upasak in Government Primary School, Diswani, Kambraon and Tikkar on the basis of declaration made by the Pardhan and Up-Pradhan before declaration of result. 3. The applicant applied for the post of Vidya Upasak in Government I Primary School Diswani, under Block Primary Education Officer Chirgaon I and under Gram Panchayat Diswani as he belongs to the same Gram Panchayat and Village. 4. The applicant duly produced requisite qualification and experience certificates before the Selection Committee on the date of interview for their consideration as called for by them. The interview for the said posts were held at Chirgaon from 1.8.2002 to 5.8.2002 in which the applicant alongwith the respondent No. 8 and other candidates participated. It is averred that the respondent No. 8 has applied for all the three schools, i.e. Government Primary School, Diswani, Government Primary School, Kambraon and Government Primary School, Tikkar. 5. The marks are to be allocated in the manner prescribed in the Vidya Upasak Yojna, as per which the applicant viz-a-viz respondent No. 8 scores the marks as follows: Sr. Qualification Applicant Respondent No. No. 8 (a) Plus Two (for 50.5% marks) 25.25 31 (for 62% marks) (b) BA & above 10 10 (c) SC 05 - (d) Panchayat Resident 10 10 (e) IRDP 02 - Total Marks 52.25 51 6. From above the applicant has tried to show his supremacy over the respondent No. 8 in score of marks on the basis prescribed marks in the scheme itself. However, there are 10 marks for viva which are to be given by the Chairman and the members in the following manner:— Marks Given: (i) SDM (Chairman) 2 (ii) BPEO 2 (iii) Pradhan 2 (iv) Up-Pradhan 1 (v) CHT 1 7. However, there are 10 marks for viva which are to be given by the Chairman and the members in the following manner:— Marks Given: (i) SDM (Chairman) 2 (ii) BPEO 2 (iii) Pradhan 2 (iv) Up-Pradhan 1 (v) CHT 1 7. The candidates selected for other Two Schools, i.e. Government Primary School, Kamboran scored 47 and for Government Primary School, Tikkar scored 44.5 marks. Despite this, the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan have selected the respondent No. 8 for Government Primary School Diswani as the candidate selected for Government Primary School Kambroan, i.e. Shri Devinder Singh is nephew of Up-Pradhan and the candidate selected for Government Primary School Tikkar, Shri Surinder Singh is nephew of Pradhan. The Pradhan and Up-Pradhan could not have participated in the selection process since their own kinsmen were candidates and they have played foul in the selection process. It is further averred, that the husband of respondent No. 8 is in service and there is no one in service from the family of the applicant. 8. In the reply filed by the respondent department, it has been further clarified that in viva the applicant was given 5 marks and the respondent No. 8 was given 7 marks, thus total marks obtained by the applicant comes to 57.25 and by the respondent No. 58.62. The respondent No. 9 scored total 55.12 marks and the respondent No. 10 scored total 52.87 marks. Remaining part of reply is stereotype and does not meet the allegations of favouratism made by the applicant. 9. Separate replies have been filed by respondents No. 8 and 9. The allegations of respondent No. 8 having applied for three schools, have been admitted by the said respondent in his reply to para 6.3 itself as well as the relations of the respondents No. 9 and 10 with the respondents No. 6 and 7. The respondents No. 6, 7 and 10 have adopted the reply filed by respondent State. No rejoinder has been filed to any of the replies. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties at length as well as perused the pleadings and summoned record and set ourselves to hold as under: (a) Applicant 57.25 (b) Respondent No. 8 58.62 (c) Respondent No. 9 55.12 (d) Respondent No. 10 52.87 11. No rejoinder has been filed to any of the replies. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties at length as well as perused the pleadings and summoned record and set ourselves to hold as under: (a) Applicant 57.25 (b) Respondent No. 8 58.62 (c) Respondent No. 9 55.12 (d) Respondent No. 10 52.87 11. From the above tally of total marks of the contesting parties, it is amply clear that the applicant has scored more marks than the respondents No. 9 and 10. The respondent No. 8 had admittedly applied for the schools where the respondents No. 9 and 10 have also applied. As such, what was the reason for the Selection Committee to select respondent No. 8 only against the school where the applicant has scored higher marks than the respondents No. 9 and 10 and not selected him against any of the two schools where the respondents No. 9 and 10 have scored lesser marks. This amply fortifies the allegations of the applicant with respect to favouritism. Admittedly, the respondents No. 9 and 10 are relatives of the respondents No. 6 and 7 who have not come out with separate replies to deny the , same. As shown above, Pradhan is one of the participant in the Selection process. As such, this vitiates the selection of the respondent No. 10 being nephew of the Pradhan. In the fore goings, the selection and. appointments of respondents No. 8, 9 and 10 for their respective schools are quashed and set aside with further directions to appoint the applicant against the post of Government Primary School Diswani from the date the respondent No. 8 was appointed with all the consequential benefits. However, the respondent department will be at liberty to adjust the respondents No. 8 and 9 against other two Schools, in accordance with their respective merits based on the selection process already concluded. These orders will be complied with within four weeks from the date of this order. Original Application stands finally disposed of. Application disposed of.