Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1027 (HP)

Ranjana Saklani v. State of H. P.

2012-12-21

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2012
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral) The challenge herein is to the order dated 20.10.2009, Annexure P-5 passed by the District Programme Coordinator, NREGA (Deputy Commissioner, Mandi) in an appeal registered as case No. 8/08, quashing thereby the appointment of the petitioner as Gram Rozgar Sewak in a group of Gram Panchayats Nagdhar, Pandoh and Seog in Sadar block of District Mandi. 2. The Executive Officer (BDO) Panchayat Samiti, Sadar invited applications for the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak. The petitioner also submitted her application. The same was entertained. The interview for the post was conducted by the Selection Committee comprising Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sadar, Sub-Division, Mandi, Chairman Panchayat Samiti, Sadar Block, Mandi and Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mandi during the period 2006 to 9.6.2008. The result was declared on 18.6.2008. Consequently, Notification Annexure P-2 came to be issued on that day itself. Name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 20 thereof. She was offered appointment for the post in question, which she accepted and resumed duties vide joining report Annexure P-4 on 23.6.2008. She continued to discharge duties as Gram Rozgar Sewak, however, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal under Clause 7 of the scheme framed by the respondent-State for appointment of Gram Rozgar Sewak, Annexure P-1 on 21.7.2008, before the competent authority i.e. District Programme Coordinator) (Deputy Commissioner, Mandi), NREGA, District Mandi, challenging therein her appointment on the grounds inter-alia that she could not have been awarded marks for experience. The case as set up in this behalf is that during the year 2004-05, she was pursuing her studies of B.A. 1st year from Vallabh Degree College, Mandi as a regular student, hence the experience certificate to the effect that she was rendering her services to Nice Computer Institute as a Computer Assistant during the period from 2004 to May, 2008 is not correct. The Appellate Authority after hearing both parties has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner could have not pursued her studies and gained experience in computer education simultaneously, therefore, set aside her appointment on this score alone as the 2nd issue that the applications were not invited from the candidates belonging to concerned group of Gram Panchayat, however, was rejected. 3. 3. In reply to the writ petition respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 while supporting the interim order has contended that the appeal preferred by the 5th respondent was within the period of limitation and also that the petitioner being a regular student of B.A. 1st year could have not worked simultaneously with the Nice Computer Institute or with the Neo Institute of Computer, because the college situate at Mandi, whereas, Neo Institute of Computer Education at Bhangrotu and Nice Computer Institute at Pandoh. 4. Similar is the plea taken by the 5th respondent in his defence in separate reply filed to the writ petition. The said respondent though has raised the issue of the petitioner not belongs to the area falls under the group of three Gram Panchayats, however, not pressed, as this point stand adjudicated upon by the Appellate Authority, which has not been assailed further by the said respondent. 5. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned counsel representing the petitioner has forcefully contended that the experience certificate, Annexure P-7 is legal and valid being issued to her by the concerned institute in lieu of she had been rendering services there during off hours i.e. 2-3 hours a day either in the morning or in the evening. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the question of limitation of the appeal, which the 5th respondent has filed before the Appellate Authority. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent had forcefully contended that this certificate Annexure P-7 on the face of it seems to be false and fictitious and as such has rightly been rejected by the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal, the petitioner preferred. 7. Having gone through the record and analyzing the rival submissions, no doubt, the minutes were signed on 18.6.2008, as is evident from the record produced by the learned Assistant Advocate General. The result was notified vide Annexure P-2 on 18.6.2008 itself. There is nothing to suggest that this was displayed on a notice board for the information of all concerned including the candidates. The result so declared is of 20 candidates and not of all the candidates. In Annexure P-2, further endorsement is there that intimation to the selected candidates will be given separately by way of appointment letter. There is nothing to suggest that this was displayed on a notice board for the information of all concerned including the candidates. The result so declared is of 20 candidates and not of all the candidates. In Annexure P-2, further endorsement is there that intimation to the selected candidates will be given separately by way of appointment letter. This leads to the only conclusion that on 18.6.2008 the 5th respondent or for that matter no-one else had an occasion to come to know about the declaration of the result. The appointment letter Annexure P-3 having been issued to the selected candidate, pursuant to the declaration of the result, Annexure P-2 was also not available for the perusal of general public or the candidates and rather it was addressed only to the selected candidates and the copy thereof endorsed to the concerned Panchayat Pradhan, Development Block, Mandi for information. It is pursuant to this order Annexure P-3, the petitioner had submitted her joining report on 23.6.2008. At the most, the 5th respondent could have come to know about the out-come of the interview or the result from this document and joining duty by the petitioner. The appeal having been preferred admittedly on 21.7.2008 is thus well within the period of limitation. The petitioner cannot be said to have any grouse on this score nor the Appellate Authority had an occasion to thrash-out the issue of limitation. 8. Now coming to the merits of this case, the experience certificate furnished by the petitioner with her application is Annexure P-7. The same has been considered by the Selection Committee for awarding her marks qua experience. Her name is at Serial No. 20 of the merit list. She has been awarded 8 marks for experience. This certificate on the face of it has been issued by Neo Institute Computer Education, Pandoh, District Mandi. A Society namely Carrier Education runs this institute. The institute where as per this certificate the petitioner use to pay her services is Nice Computer Institute. The signatory to this certificate are the Vice-president, Carrier Education Society and as per printed address Principal, Nice Institute, whereas, stamped with the stamp of Neo Institute, Pandoh, Distt. Mandi. Nothing is there in this certificate qua the registered office of Carrier Education Society. The signatory to this certificate are the Vice-president, Carrier Education Society and as per printed address Principal, Nice Institute, whereas, stamped with the stamp of Neo Institute, Pandoh, Distt. Mandi. Nothing is there in this certificate qua the registered office of Carrier Education Society. The complete address of Nice Computer or Neo Computer of Computer centre is also not in this document and the same is shown to be functioning at Pandoh. Above all, this certificate pertains to the period from April, 2004 to May, 2008. The petitioner admittedly was a regular student of Vallabh Government Degree College, Mandi during the year 2004-05. Simultaneously no doubt she could have undergone some other course including any course in computer science, but to acquire experience in any field including computer science. One must work in any institution may be part time or whole time. Had she been working in Neo Institute or Nice Computer Institute she would have made reference of her working hours in the morning or in the late evening. However, nothing to this effect has come on record. No doubt, she has come forward with the version that for a regular student, there is no bar to undergo computer course simultaneously during the off hours i.e. 2-3 hours a day either in the morning or in the evening, however, the plea so raised is not sufficient to remove doubt qua the authenticity and genuineness of the certificate Annexure P-7. The Appellate authority has thus rightly quashed the appointment of the petitioner after due application of mind and affording opportunity of being heard to both parties. The direction qua appointment of next candidate in the merit, however, does not hold good for the reason that the interview was conducted long back in the year 2008 and the merit list was also prepared during that year itself i.e. on 18.6.2008. Above all, there is nothing on record to show that competent authority has taken a decision to prepare waiting list to fill up the vacancy(s), if any. In such a situation, the only direction warranted qua this aspect of the matter would be a direction to the 4th respondent to initiate process afresh for filling up the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak strictly in accordance with the scheme, Annexure P-3. 9. In such a situation, the only direction warranted qua this aspect of the matter would be a direction to the 4th respondent to initiate process afresh for filling up the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak strictly in accordance with the scheme, Annexure P-3. 9. For the reasons sated hereinabove, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, however, with a direction to the 4th respondent to initiate fresh process for filling up the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment from the office of learned Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh. The selection process shall be expedited within two months thereafter. The existing arrangement, however, shall continue in the meanwhile. 10. With these observations, the petition stands finally disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.