Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 963 (HP)

SUMAN KUMARI v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-11-18

RAJIV SHARMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. PETITIONER has mainly prayed for the following relief: - "a). That impugned act on the part of the respondents in not engaging the services of the petitioner may very kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to the respondents to engage the services of the petitioner forthwith without any further delay on the basis of interview held and approval given by respondent No. 2 and treat the petitioner equivalent to the persons, whose services already stand engaged for the purpose of seniority etc.; b) That respondents may very kindly be directed to pay arrears of wages also to the petitioner, more particularly, in view of the fact that petitioner having been duly selected, her services were not engaged malafidely. Further directions may be given to the respondents not to keep ill -will and grudge against the petitioner for approaching this Hon'ble Court for the redressal of her genuine grievance." 2. IT is the case of the petitioner that she undertook selection process for the post of Clerk/Computer Data Entry Operator, to be appointed on contract basis, by respondent No. 3. She was duly selected and in the merit list placed at Sr. No. 1. In the year 2012 the Director of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (respondent No. 2) also accorded approval for engagement of all the selected candidates. It is her grievance that despite the same, no letter of appointment was issued to her. We find that petitioner did appear in the interview for the post of Clerk/Computer Data Entry Operator and her name does figure at Sr. No. 1. 3. ON first brush, there appears to be merit in the petitioner's submission, but when we examine the response filed by respondent No. 3, we find that petition only merits rejection. In fact, we are of the considered view that petitioner has mislead this Court and concealed relevant information. 4. PETITIONER had applied as a BPL candidate. She suppressed information from the Court that her BPL certificate stood cancelled by the concerned Panchayat, which fact is evident from Annexure R -3/A. As such, she was not even eligible for being considered for the post in question. 4. PETITIONER had applied as a BPL candidate. She suppressed information from the Court that her BPL certificate stood cancelled by the concerned Panchayat, which fact is evident from Annexure R -3/A. As such, she was not even eligible for being considered for the post in question. That apart, we find that petitioner does not fulfill the prescribed essential qualification required for appointment as a Clerk/Computer Data Entry Operator as prescribed qualification of typing speed in Hindi was 25 words per minute and 30 words per minute in English. In the selection process, petitioner's speed was found to be 15 words per minute in Hindi and 25 words per minute in English. It stands clarified that the approval accorded by respondent No. 2 was only conditional, being fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility criteria. Since no candidate for the post in question, fulfilled the eligibility criteria, the authorities cancelled the selection list. 5. IT is contended that similarly situated persons stand appointed by respondent No. 3 and as such petitioner be also appointed. This submission also merits rejection. We may clarify that we have not gone into the legality of such appointments. In law, more so on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, no legally enforceable right would vest in favour of the present petitioner. Right of equality is a positive right. Unhesitatingly, we hold that since the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria of essential qualification, no appointment can be offered to her. Hence, present petition, devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.