Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 834 (HP)

JAGDISH CHAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-09-23

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THREE points have been raised before us. The first is that respondent No. 4 has been allotted 15 marks as against 10 marks provided for age. This contention has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned decision. It has been noticed that the marks provided for age group up to 18 to 27 were 15 marks. Since respondent No. 4 was covered under the said age group, was allotted 15 marks. Thus, the marks to be allotted were not 10 marks, as contended by the appellant writ petitioner. We find no reason to interfere with that opinion of the learned Single Judge. The second contention of the appellant writ petitioner is that the appellant writ petitioner possessed diploma from I.T.I. (Plumber), whereas respondent No. 4 had obtained national trade certificate in the trade of welding. It is submitted that the qualification possessed by respondent No. 4 was not commensurate with the requirement for the post of Water Guard. Even this grievance has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant writ petitioner was allotted nine marks for technical knowledge whereas respondent No. 4 was given only six marks for that purpose. The distinction regarding qualification has been kept in mind by the selection committee. Further, the counsel for the appellant writ petitioner admits that no specific qualification regarding the diploma from ITI (Plumber) has been provided in the advertisement on the basis of which the selection process was initiated. In the circumstances, we find no reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. 3. THE last contention of the appellant writ petitioner is that the decision to appoint respondent No. 4 was already taken, which is evident from the circumstance that the appointment letter was issued on 4th September, 2012, whereas the selection process was concluded with the passing of resolution on 9th September, 2012. This argument was not raised before the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge has found that no case of mala fide exercise of power has been alleged in the petition. This argument was not raised before the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge has found that no case of mala fide exercise of power has been alleged in the petition. Since the decision of the selection committee is found to be unexceptionable of allotting higher marks to respondent No. 4, the clerical error committed in issuing the letter of appointment before passing of the resolution, cannot be the basis to set aside the appointment. For, the resolution upholds the decision of the selection committee. 4. IN the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.