Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 777 (HP)

Satya Devi v. State of H. P.

2009-09-08

DEEPAK GUPTA, V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUGDEMENT Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): The only grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that though the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal allowed her Original Application and quashed the selection of respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Sarosh, P.O. Kangu, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, but it erred in directing that the fresh interview be held. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal should have directed that the appointment be made according to merit. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed O.A. No. 2295/2002 before the learned Tribunal challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier in the aforesaid school. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner was that though all the documents had been attached with her application to show that she fell in the category of unemployed and also under the category of the persons who have donated land for the school, but she had not been awarded marks under these headings. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant had been awarded marks under the column “donated land for the school”, but she had not been awarded any marks for belonging to the unemployed category, though she had supplied the necessary documents in support of her application. 3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that if these marks were awarded, the applicant would have got 23 marks as against 21 marks awarded to respondent No. 5. The Tribunal held that patent material irregularity is writ large in this case, as the Selection Committee had omitted to award any marks to the applicant under the heading “candidate belonging to unemployed category”. 4. The Original Application was allowed and the appointment of respondent No. 5 was quashed. However, the Tribunal gave liberty to the State to hold fresh interview for the post of Part Time Water Carrier. Once, the Original Application filed by the present petitioner the appointment of respondent No. 5 was set aside and it was positively held by the Tribunal that the petitioner was higher in merit, then the Tribunal should not have directed holding of fresh interview. We have heard the matter on 26.8.2009 and were not clear whether fresh interviews had been held and any person had been appointed against the post of Part Time Water Carrier. 5. We have heard the matter on 26.8.2009 and were not clear whether fresh interviews had been held and any person had been appointed against the post of Part Time Water Carrier. 5. Therefore, we had directed the State to file an affidavit informing whether any person has been appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Sarosh or not. We have been informed that neither interviews were held nor such appointment made. In view of the fact that no appointment has been made and also that respondent No. 5 never challenged the order of the Tribunal, we feel that the petitioner could not have been denied the appointment as Part Time Water Carrier. We, therefore, direct the State to offer appointment to the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Sarosh, within six weeks from today. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.