Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1049 (HP)

Bunty Singh v. State of HP

2012-12-27

DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJAY KAROL

body2012
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge Petitioner Shri Bunty Singh has assailed the appointment of private respondent No.5 Shri Sandeep Kumar, as a Part-time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Teora at Basantpur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, HP. 2. The challenge is primarily on the ground that the private respondent furnished a false certificate with regard to the distance of his house from the school, showing it to be 1 km, and as such on the basis of the said certificate the Selection Committee wrongly awarded ten marks, in terms of the Scheme dated 25.7.2011 notified by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on account of which private respondent was wrongly selected on merit and given appointment. 3. Notice in the petition was issued and the parties entered appearance. The private respondent did not file any reply but the State justified the action of selection of the private respondent on the basis of the certificate so submitted by him. 4. On 20.11.2012, this Court directed the Assistant Engineer, Indora Sub Division, HPPWD, to personally visit the spot and verify the distance, both by metalled road as well as commonly used village path. The Court also directed the Patwari and the Tehsildar Indora, who issued the certificate in question, to remain present. 5. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Tehsildar (Indora) and Shri Shiv Charan, Patwari (Teora) are present today. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Tehsildar (Indora) has explained that he was not holding the charge at the relevant time. Shri Shiv Charan, Patwari (Teora), while tendering his unconditional apology, which is accepted by us, has explained the circumstances under which he could not personally visit the spot and in good belief, based on the report of the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat, issued the certificate in question. 6. Also, report of the Assistant Engineer has been made available, which evidently establishes the fact that distance from the house of the private respondent up to the school, both by metalled road and Katcha path, is more than 2.4 kms. Thus, in terms of the scheme, private respondent could not have been awarded ten marks but only six marks. From the selection list prepared by the Selection Committee, it is evidently clear that petitioner was awarded 23 marks and kept at Serial No.1 of the waiting list, whereas private respondent being a selected candidate was awarded 24 marks. Thus, in terms of the scheme, private respondent could not have been awarded ten marks but only six marks. From the selection list prepared by the Selection Committee, it is evidently clear that petitioner was awarded 23 marks and kept at Serial No.1 of the waiting list, whereas private respondent being a selected candidate was awarded 24 marks. Based on the criteria laid down under the scheme, private respondent could not have been awarded more than 20 marks, leaving the petitioner to be more meritorious and entitled to be considered as a selected candidate. 7. In this view of the matter, we quash the selection of Shri Sandeep Kumar as a Part-time Water Carrier, Government Senior Secondary School, Teora at Basantpur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, HP and hold petitioner Shri Bunty Singh to be more meritorious having scored the maximum marks amongst all the candidates and as such direct respondent No.3/4 to immediately appoint the petitioner to the post in question. This shall positively be done within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.