Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1951 (HP)

Sunita Rana v. State of H. P.

2011-04-01

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. Notice issued to the petitioner has been received back unserved with the report that no such person is residing at the given address. 2. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii): “7(i) That the act of the respondent No. 3 in ignoring the experience certificates of the applicant may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, contrary, unwarranted, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law and the respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Art and Craft Teacher by taking into account the experience certificates (Annexures A8 to A11). (ii) That the respondent No. 3 may further be directed to appoint the applicant as Art and Craft Teacher, w.e.f., the date the other persons have been appointed against the posts of Art and Craft Teacher on the basis of interview conducted on 27.7.03, alongwith all consequential benefits.” 3. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6(iii) to 6(v): “6(iii). That the contents of this para are denied for want of knowledge. The applicant has not placed on record either the copy of letter indicating the standard of applicant's school or recognition accorded by the Govt./Department. The bare perusal of Annexure A/8, demonstrates it is Employment-Cum-Character certificate duly countersigned by the Block Primary Education Officer, Kangra-II and District Primary Education Officer, Kangra and is competent to countersign the experience certificate of Primary Schools in the respective District and rest will be countersigned by the District Education Officer (Secondary). For the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that Annexure A/8 is an experience certificate even then applicant's school is a Primary School and in Primary Schools subject” Act and Craft” is not taught. Therefore, the certificate in the possession of the applicant and on the basis of which she is claiming weightage is not valid and has rightly not been considered by the selection committee. (iv) That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. It is further submitted that the cfontention of the applicant is wishful thinking and according to her convenience. But it is submitted that “Socially Useful Productive Work” is a different and distinct subject and has no nexus with the “Art and Craft” subject. Therefore, Annexure A/9 can not be considered at par or equivalent to that of Art and Craft. It is further submitted that the cfontention of the applicant is wishful thinking and according to her convenience. But it is submitted that “Socially Useful Productive Work” is a different and distinct subject and has no nexus with the “Art and Craft” subject. Therefore, Annexure A/9 can not be considered at par or equivalent to that of Art and Craft. (v) That in reply to this para it is respectfully submitted that the contention of the applicant is misconstrued and hypothetical, thus, emphatically denied. The bare perusal of Annexure A/10 and A/11 crystal clearlydemonstrates that the applicant's appointment in Kendriya Vidyalaya Yol Cantt was on part-time contract basis. These certificates nowhere reflect specificallythe number of periods taught by her per day. It is pertinent to mention here that as per policy a person having experience not less than six months of Govt. Schools/ duly recognised school shall be entitled to get the marks of the experience certificates. In view of this position, the applicant's claim is not in consonance to the criteria for the purpose. Hence, applicant has rightly been denied weightage by the selection committee.” 4. Rejoinder, refuting the above stand on behalf of respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed. 5. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, she may certainly point out the same before respondent No. 2/competent authority by way of appropriate representation alongwith copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any.