Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 385 (HP)

Shankar Lal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2012-07-13

V.K.SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayer:- "A) That the appointment/selection of respondent No. 4 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the respondents be directed to appoint the applicant on the post of Water Carrier." 2. The petitioner along with respondent No. 4 and some other candidates had participated in the process for appointment to the post of Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bajhol, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla, in which respondent No. 4 was selected and the petitioner was placed at the second position. The appointment of respondent No.4 has been challenged by the petitioner on the following averments set up, vide para 6 (v) and (vi):- "v) That it is also pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 4 has been selected by the respondents whose father is Chairman BDC and is politically heavy-weighted. The result was declares on 17.8.2002. The applicant was told that he was at No. 1 on merit list whereas respondent No. 4 has been selected ignoring the claim of the applicant and there is over-writing in the record. The applicant prays that the record of the case be called for. It may also be mentioned there that respondent No.4 does not belong to IRDP whereas applicant belongs to IRDP and she is from a rich family having Kriyana Shop, Atta Chakki in her fathers name. The action of the respondents in selecting respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and against the State Policy dated 27.7.2001 regarding the recruitment of Part Time Water Carrier and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. vi) That the applicant is 8th standard whereas respondent No.4 is only 6th standard and the applicant also belongs to Scheduled caste category whereas the respondent No. 4 is of general category, therefore she could not have been selected having less merit than the applicant." 3. In reply respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the following stand by way of preliminary submissions:- "That the applicant in this O.A. has challenged the selection of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Bajhol, Block Sunni, Distt. Shimla. The instant applicant is totally wrong and misconceived. In reply respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the following stand by way of preliminary submissions:- "That the applicant in this O.A. has challenged the selection of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Bajhol, Block Sunni, Distt. Shimla. The instant applicant is totally wrong and misconceived. The selection of the respondent No.4 has been made on the recommendation of the duly constituted committee for the purpose under the chairmanship of the S.D.O.(C) of the area concerned as provided under the instruction/guidelines issued by the State Govt. regarding the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in the Education Department. As such the assertion of the applicant is based on wrong facts and information as is evident from the reply as detailed herein below and as such is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice." 4. The following averments have been set up on behalf of respondent No. 4, vide para 6 (v) and (vi) of the reply:- "v) That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent that the father of respondent No. 4 is Chairman BDC and the result was declared on 17.08.2002. As far as question of applicant belong to IRFP is concerned, it has no relevance and no weight age can be granted to the applicant on this point because as per the notification dated 27.7.2001 issued by Government of H.P. the selection committee is bound to judge the candidate purely on merit. Therefore applicant cannot get any benefit on the basis of this ground. vi) That the contents of this para are denied. The respondent No. 4 passed 8th standard with 399 marks out of 700 the mark sheet is annexed as R4/1." 5. Respondent No. 5 has set up the following averments by way of preliminary submissions:- "The replying respondent was posted and working as Sub-divisional Magistrate, Shimla (Rural), during the year 2002. It is humbly submitted that since the matter pertains to the year 2002, the respondent is not in a position to explain each and everything about the selection of candidates, however, from the perusal of documents supplied to him, the replying respondent humbly submits that the selection process was completed strictly as per the rules and instructions prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Selection process including the interview was completed by all the members of the selection committee and decisions were taken with consensus by the committee. From the perusal of the documents supplied at this stage, the replying respondents humbly submits that the cuttings appearing in the result card was done with the consent of the interviewing committee and has been duly attested by the members of the committee which establishes that it was the result of discussion on the merits of the candidates in the committee and meeting of minds of members of interviewing committee. Based on the decision of the committee, the candidate who got maximum marks was selected. It is humbly submitted that the selection of the respondent has been done strictly in accordance with the rules as applicable for the selection of the Part Time Water Carrier at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the selection process was completed without any political influence. It is wrong to say that the selection process has been done to favour any candidate. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is humbly submitted that the notice issued against the replying respondent may very kindly be discharged and justice may kindly be done." 6. It was during the course of hearing of the present petition that record of the selection for the aforesaid post was ordered to be produced. The same has been produced and perused. On a bare perusal of the original interview sheet, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner along with the petition as Annexure P-8 along with Hindi and English translation thereof as Annexures P-8/T and P-8/E, would go to show that the petitioner, who figures in the said list at Sr. No. 10 was initially awarded 04 marks for the personal interview, which by way of interpolation and overwriting have been reduced to 03. Similarly, respondent No. 4, who is at Sr. No. 06 of the list and was awarded 04 marks in the personal interview, has been shown to have scored 6.5 marks in the said interview, again by way of interpolation and overwriting. Similarly, respondent No. 4, who is at Sr. No. 06 of the list and was awarded 04 marks in the personal interview, has been shown to have scored 6.5 marks in the said interview, again by way of interpolation and overwriting. As a result of the aforesaid interpolations and over writings, the overall score of the petitioner was reduced from 22 to 21 and that of respondent No. 4 raised from 19 to 21.5 and thereby whereas the petitioner, who was at No. 1 position, was relegated to the second position and respondent No. 4, who was at No. 3 position was upgraded to first position. 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and consequently the appointment of respondent No. 4, which is clearly as a result of manipulation cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed with immediate effect with a direction to respondents No. 1 to 3/competent authority to appoint the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bajhol in place of respondent No.4 within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner, with further direction to the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to take further action in the matter and do the needful within further one week. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.1 is directed to supply the names of the Members of the Selection Committee, who had interviewed the candidates for the aforesaid post held on 30.7.2002 to the Registry of this court within a period of four weeks from today by filing supplementary affidavit, so that notices may be issued to them to show cause as to why action may not be initiated against them for resorting to the aforesaid interpolations and over writings in the interview sheet, which on the face of it appear to be clear manipulation carried out by them to achieve the aforesaid unlawful design. 9. Record returned. 10. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of. Copy dasti.