Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1732 (HP)

Naresh Chand v. State of H. P.

2014-11-24

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) By the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents-State, whereby the petitioners have been denied appointment as JBT teachers. 2. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed the reply. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the grievance of the writ petitioners No.2, 4, 8 and 10 stands redressed and, therefore, they were ordered to be deleted from the array of the writ petitioners, vide order dated 21st April, 2014, passed by this Court. Thereafter, in terms of order dated 23rd September, 2014, the official respondents were directed to file fresh affidavit, but failed to do so. 4. We have gone through the reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 3. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, of the preliminary submissions hereunder: ?4. That as per the information received from respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba he advertised the post for sponsoring the name of eligible candidates for the purpose of appointment as JBT on contract basis under entire reserve category/sub category from all the employment exchange of Chamba District. The petitioner No.1 was appeared for counseling on 26-11-2013 and had produced the IRDP certificate during the course of counseling, but the same was not considered due to the reason that the Employment Exchange, Churach, and District Chamba sponsored him just under Scheduled Tribe category. IT is further submitted that if the petitioner No.1 is considered under ST (IRDP) category, he cannot given appointment as JBT on contract basis in District Chamba, as he has just scored 100 marks in TET examination. Whereas, the last candidate under ST/IRDP category as selected has scored 104 marks in TET examination and if his candidature has been considered under ST category, the last candidate under ST category as selected has scored 102 marks in TET examination and it is further submitted that the last candidate of General category who was selected and given appointment as JBT in Chamba District had scored 100 marks in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and had scored 2222 out of 2800 marks in JBT examination that comes to 79.3% and whereas, the present petitioner No.1 who had also scored 100 marks in TET examination and had scored 1910 out of 2800 marks in JBT examination that comes to 68.7% was not selected. Hence, the petitioner No.1 not eligible for appointment as JBT on contract basis in Chamba District. 5. That the petitioner No.1, 3, 5 & 6 who had appeared for counseling, to be appointed as JBT on contract basis under Scheduled Tribe category had scored 100 marks respectively in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) could not be selected, whereas the last candidate had been selected after applying the 200 points roster as per provision laid down under Rule 15 & 16 of Recruitment & Promotion Rules of JBT category namely Sh. Vinod Kumar who had scored 102 marks in TET and appeared at Sr. No.117 of the revised merit list. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.2, 4, 8 & 10 appeared for counseling and belonged to ST (IRDP)/SC/ST category respectively and had been selected. That the petitioner No.7 & 9 who were belonging to General IRDP category had scored 100 & 101 marks in TET examination respectively could not be selected, whereas the last candidate belonging to General IRDP category namely Sh. Sandeep Sharma appearing at Sr. No.114 of the revised merit list, had scored 102 marks in TET examination and had been selected as such. 6. That as per information received from respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba 191 posts allotted to District Chamba for appointment as JBT on contract basis out of which 183 posts has filled on contract basis by the respondent No.3 as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules of JBTs and remaining posts are not fill up due to non availability of reserve category candidates in the District. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed.? 5. In view of the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 read with the rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners, we are of the considered view that petitioners No.1, 3, 5 to 7 and 9 have carved out a case for interference. 6. However, we deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing respondents No.1 to 3/competent Authority to consider the case of petitioners No.1, 3, 5 to 7 and 9 as per law and make a decision within a period of six weeks from today. 7. 6. However, we deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing respondents No.1 to 3/competent Authority to consider the case of petitioners No.1, 3, 5 to 7 and 9 as per law and make a decision within a period of six weeks from today. 7. It goes without saying that in case the consideration order goes against the petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the same and in case the consideration order goes in their favour, seniority shall be assigned to them in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in LPA No.170 of 2014, titled as Shri Balak Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, on 19.11.2014. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending CMPs, if any. Copy dasti.