Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1899 (HP)

Anjna Kumari v. State of H. P.

2014-12-12

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. By medium of this petition, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:- “(i) That the appointment of respondent No. 4 as part time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samtehan, Tehsil Dasra, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. may kindly be quashed/set aside and the petitioner may kindly be appointed as such in the said school being eligible as part time Water Carrier.” 2. Interview for the post of part time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Samtehan in District Bilaspur was to be held on 18.2.2012 and the Selection Committee was to comprise of the following members:- Elementary Education Department 1. SDO (C) concerned Area, Chairman 2. Centre Head Teacher of the concerned school, member 3. President, School Management Committee of the concerned school, member. It was further provided that the interview marks shall be awarded to the candidates out of 30 and the distribution of marks was as under:- 1. For candidates of village/town at distance: (a) Up to 1.5 KMs from school 10 Marks (b) Up to 2 KMs from school 8 Marks (c) Up to 3 KMs from school 6 Marks (d) Up to 4 KMs from school 4 Marks (e) Up to 5 KMs from school 2 Marks 2. For candidates whose families have donated land for school 5 Marks 3. Candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/BPL 3 Marks 4. Candidates belonging to unemployed families 5 Marks 5. Interview/Viva 7 Marks Interview for the post in question was conducted by the Selection Committee, headed by the SDM as the Chairman, in which six candidates appeared in the interview and respondent No. 4 having been awarded the highest marks was ordered to be selected and was consequently appointed. 3. Petitioner claims to be belonging to BPL family and that apart being landless and therefore, had a preferential right to be appointed. It is claimed that the interview committee had illegally awarded 6 marks in the interview to respondent No. 4 in order to defeat the legal and genuine claim of the petitioner, who was only awarded only 1 mark. It is further claimed that respondent No. 4 is a member of joint family, which is headed by her mother-in-law, who is in receipt of pension, since her husband was in service of BBMB. The family income of respondent No. 4 is more than Rs.12000/- per annum and therefore, she was not entitled to be appointed. It is further claimed that respondent No. 4 is a member of joint family, which is headed by her mother-in-law, who is in receipt of pension, since her husband was in service of BBMB. The family income of respondent No. 4 is more than Rs.12000/- per annum and therefore, she was not entitled to be appointed. 4. The official respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has been specifically averred that the selection of respondent No. 4 has been made with the prior approval of the Government by a duly constituted committee, wherein the selection was made purely on merits. 5. Respondent No. 4 on the other hand has filed separate reply, wherein she has claimed herself to be a widow and having five children (3 daughters, 2 sons) and it is further claimed that she has been separated by her mother-in-law after death of her husband and there is none to support her children. While the petitioner on the other hand at least has her husband by her side, therefore, she is better placed. It is further claimed that she is not possessed of any agricultural land, as she had been ousted from the joint family in the year 2009. Thereafter she had applied to Gram Panchayat, Tarsooh for separation in record on 2.3.2011, however, the proceedings culminated only in the year 2012. This respondent has further re-iterated that her income is far less than Rs.12,000/- per annum and therefore, apart from having selected on merits, she is entitled to the post after taking into consideration her insecurity. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. The only contention raised by the petitioner during the course of arguments is that the petitioner had been awarded only 1 mark in the interview, while respondent No. 4 had been awarded 6 marks just to defeat the legal and genuine claim of the petitioner. At this stage, it may be notice that there are no allegations of favoritism or malafide and therefore, the said allegations cannot be declared to be bad as this Court is not likely to interfere in the selection process. At this stage, it may be notice that there are no allegations of favoritism or malafide and therefore, the said allegations cannot be declared to be bad as this Court is not likely to interfere in the selection process. Now in so far the question of awarding marks in the interview is concerned, the same was in the realm of assessment of the relative merits of candidates concerned by the Selection Committee before whom the candidates appeared for the viva voce. Merely on the basis of petitioner’s apprehension or suspicion that she was deliberately given less mark in the oral interview as compared to the rival candidates, it could not be said that the process of assessment is vitiated. 7. As already noticed above, there is no whisper in the entire petition about any favoritism, bias or malafide. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the petitioner has already taken a chance and having not been selected, cannot question the selection. Both the aforesaid contentions are squarely answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal and others Vs. State of J & K and others, (1995) 3 SCC 486 in the following terms:- “10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly nor acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.” 8. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly nor acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.” 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.