Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1141 (HP)

Anant Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-03-09

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 5 to the post of Prathmic Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Jana. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner alongwith other candidates submitted application for considering his candidature for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Jana, Tehsil & District Kullu. Petitioner and similarly situate persons were issued call letters on 20.02.2006, whereby they were directed to appear for interview on 03.03.2006. Petitioner appeared before the interview board comprising of S.D.O.(C), Pradhan Gram Panchayat, CHT and the BPEO. However, the respondent No. 5 was selected to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Jana. 3. Mr. Hamender Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per Clause-6 of the notification issued vide Annexure A-2, the candidates belonging to the same Panchayat for which the vacancy had been notified, were to be given preference. According to him, respondent No. 5 belongs to Gram Panchayat, Archhandi. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate have supported the selection of respondent No. 5. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. The detailed procedure has been laid down for notifying the vacancies, selection and engagement of Prathmic Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) vide Annexure A-2, Clause-6 whereof reads thus: “6. Eligibility for applications. The candidates with requisite educational qualifications and age shall be eligible to apply. However, preference will be given to the candidates belonging to the same Panchayat for which the vacancy has been notified, failing which candidates belonging to adjoining Panchayats shall be considered and so on till suitable candidates become available. 7. It is evident from the phraseology employed in Annexure A-2 that the candidates belonging to the same Panchayat, for which the vacancy has been notified has to be given preference. Petitioner belongs to Gram Panchayat, Jana. Respondent No. 5 has got his name incorporated in the Parivar register of Gram Panchayat, Jana as per Annexure A-4, only on 18.01.2006. Respondent No. 5 has not placed on record any tangible evidence to establish that in fact he belongs to Gram Panchayat, Jana, for which the vacancies were notified. 8. Mr. Petitioner belongs to Gram Panchayat, Jana. Respondent No. 5 has got his name incorporated in the Parivar register of Gram Panchayat, Jana as per Annexure A-4, only on 18.01.2006. Respondent No. 5 has not placed on record any tangible evidence to establish that in fact he belongs to Gram Panchayat, Jana, for which the vacancies were notified. 8. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has drawn the attention of the Court to affidavits Annexures R-5/1 and R-5/2 sworn by respondent No. 5 and one Shri Chande Ram. These affidavits were sworn on 24.03.2006. The date of interview was 03.03.2006. He has also placed reliance on Annexures R-5 to R-8. These Annexures have not been signed. Thus, they cannot be taken into consideration. The Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Jana has also issued Annexure A-5, certifying therein that respondent No. 5 belongs to Gram Panchayat, Archhandi and his name was incorporated in the Parivar register of Gram Panchayat, Jana only on 18.01.2006. Respondent No. 5 does not belong to Gram Panchayat, Jana. The petitioner as well as nine candidates were available from Gram Panchayat, Jana. In view of this, the Selection Committee could not select respondent No. 5 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. It was only in the eventuality of the candidates not being available from the same Gram Panchayat, other candidates could be considered. In the instant case, since the petitioner and 9 other candidates were available from the same Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 5 could not be selected to post of Primary Assistant Teacher. 9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent No. 5 made pursuant to interview held on 03.03.2006 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher, is quashed and set aside. Respondents No. 3 and 6 are directed to make fresh appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher as per the merit list drawn pursuant to the interview held on 03.03.2006 by ignoring the candidature of respondent No. 5. The needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from today. No costs.