Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1616 (HP)

Manjeet Kaur v. State of H. P.

2011-03-22

KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KAROL

body2011
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) That the respondents No. 1 to 5 may be directed to quash and set aside the appointment of respondents No. 6 and 7 in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondents No. 1 to 5 may further be directed to appoint the applicant as para teacher(Lecturer-in-Hindi) who is fully eligible for the same.” 2. In the reply at paragraph 3, it is stated as follows: “3. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the respondents No. 5 and 7 have been appointed as Lecturer(Hind) under Para Teacher Policy on the recommendation of the respondent No.3 i.e. SDM(Civil) Nurpur who was the chairman of Selection Committee of Nurpur Sub Division. It is further submitted that the respondent No.6 namely Sh. Rajinder Singh secured 61.25 marks whereas the applicant got 40.78 marks as per merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, hence he was found eligible for the appointment of Lecturer(Hind) and his name was recommended by the chairman to the Principal GSSS Branda i.e. respondent No.4 and has been offered appointment accordingly. So far as the appointment of respondent No.7 namely Aruna Mehra is concerned, it is also made clear that she appeared before the Selection Committee for the post of Lecturer(Hind) in GSSS Ladouri and she secured 54.82 marks whereas, the applicant could get 39.71 marks as per the merit list prepared by the SDM Nurpur. Moreover, the respondent No.7 has worked on contract basis for the period of 19 months 20 days as per experience certificate submitted by her. Since, selections of respondent No. 6 & 7 have been made strictly as per merit by the duly constituted committee who has the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and the Hon’ble Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate court and quash selection by itself scrutinizing comparative merits, thus the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed.” 3. There is no rejoinder to the said reply. There is no rejoinder to the said reply. In view of the reply as above, in case the petitioner has still any grievance left, it will be open to him to approach the second respondent, in which case the second respondent will look into the matter with notice to the petitioner and to the affected parties and take appropriate action within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.