Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 811 (HP)

Anita v. State of H. P.

2014-06-30

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Lecturer (Economics) in Government Senior Secondary School, Kothi-Gehri by the duly constituted committee of the Parents Teachers Association, on 15.9.2006. The appointment of the petitioner, as lecturer (Economics) was challenged by respondent No.4, who took to file a complaint before the inquiry committee, constituted by the Government, for the said purpose. He alleged, therein, that merit was ignored at the time of selection of the petitioner, by the PTA Committee, of the said school. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner herein were terminated on the basis of report submitted by the inquiry committee, pursuant to the government notification No.DEM-A-Kha(7)3/2006, dated 27.5.2008. The petitioner, herein, then filed an appeal against the findings of the inquiry committee before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, which was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the report of the inquiry committee, as well, as, by the orders rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, in appeal, the petitioner filed CWP No.1226 of 2009 before this Court. Consequnelty, this Court passed the following directions in the said petition along with other analogous petitions on 18.3.2010:- “In view of the clarification issued by the Director of Higher Education, H.P., the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the enquiry committee to consider the matter afresh in the light of the instructions referred to above. The needful, if required, shall be done within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by either side.” 2. In consequence to the orders rendered by this Court in CWP No.1226 of 2009, on 18.3.2010, the inquiry committee/competent authority, entered upon the inquiry and on completion of inquiry proceedings, recorded its conclusions, which are comprised in Annexure P-4. Annexure P-4, manifests the fact that judicial dictum, mandates, that an objective basis should be fulcrum for making appointments to the PTA. However, in case, rational and objective criteria, is, adopted and followed by the committee, such adoption would forestall any inquiry, into appointments made by the PTA. Both the petitioner and the complainant, were summoned by the Officers, who rendered the decision, comprised in Annexure P-4. A comparative chart existing at internal Page-4 of Annexure P-4, underscores the factum of the marks awarded/obtained by the contenders. Both the petitioner and the complainant, were summoned by the Officers, who rendered the decision, comprised in Annexure P-4. A comparative chart existing at internal Page-4 of Annexure P-4, underscores the factum of the marks awarded/obtained by the contenders. Its perusal divulges that the petitioner was awarded five marks under the relevant/apposite criteria, of hers belonging to the local Panchayat. However, marks earned/awarded to the petitioner, on the score of her being a member of local Panchayat, was the core controversy inter se the petitioner and the complainant (respondent No.4). Annexure P-4, records the conclusion that the awarding of 5 marks to the petitioner, on, the score of hers being a local resident was erroneous, as well as flawed, in as much, as, copy of the Parivar Register, Gram Panchyat, Janed, reveals her to be a resident of Gram Panchayat, Janed and not of Gram Panchayat, Koti Gehri, within whose domain and jurisdiction, the school, where the petitioner was appointed, is located. Consequently, she being not a local resident of the Panchayat concerned, marks on the score of her being a local resident could not have been awarded to her. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, before this Court that the said findings recorded by the Officers, who rendered, Annexures P-4 and P-13, qua the fact of awarding of marks to the petitioner on the score of her being resident of the Gram Panchayat concerned, being, not tenable, on the score of her name being not reflected, in, the Parivar Register of Gram Panchayat concerned, are misconceived, as well, as, rudderless. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends with force, that, both the said decisions are fallible, in as much, as (a) there is omission on the part of the Officers, who rendered, Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-13, to make an advertence or allusion, hence, concomitantly untenably discarding jamabandi for the year 2008-2009, comprised, in, Annexure P-5, which reveals the fact of the petitioner’s father-in-law owning and possessing the land, in, Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri, as such, it is canvassed that its existence rendered her to be a resident of Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri. However, the said contention addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to impeach the findings recorded in Annexures P-4 and P-13 by the officers concerned, qua the fact of the petitioner not being resident of Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri, within whose jurisdiction the school in which she was appointed, is situated, necessitates, its, being dis-countenanced on the short score, that the holding of land, in a particular Panchayat, does not either portray nor reveal, the holder to be a resident thereof. Rather, the factum of residence, is, manifested by the holding of by the aspirant/candidate of ration cards issued by the authority, within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, where the school, where the appointment is made, is situated or by a revelation in the Parivar Register maintained by the Panchayat concerned, marking the fact of residence of the petitioner in the Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the relevant school, is, situated. However, the petitioner has omitted to place on record any abstract of Parivar Register maintained by Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri, pronouncing upon the fact of the residence of the petitioner in Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri, wherein the relevant school is situated. Rather, she has placed on record the abstract of Parivar Register reflecting the fact of hers being resident of Gram Panchayat, Janed, hence, has acquiesced to the fact of hers being not resident of Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri, within whose domain and jurisdiction the relevant school, where she was appointed, is situated. Concomitantly, when she by production of abstract of Parivar Register while revealing the fact of her’s being entered in the relevant record of Gram Panchayat, Janed, hence, portraying her to be a member of that Panchayat, hence, too, has acquiesced to the factum of hers being a resident of the Gram Panchayat, aforesaid, as such, the natural inevitable inference which spurs is that, hence, she was aptly concluded to be not resident of Gram Panchayat, Koti Gehri, rather to be a resident of Gram Panchayat Janed, dehors the fact that she owned land, located within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri. 4. Further more, it is also imperative to conclude that the holding of land, even within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri, is, neither a relevant nor a germane parameter for determining “residence” of the aspirant. 4. Further more, it is also imperative to conclude that the holding of land, even within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri, is, neither a relevant nor a germane parameter for determining “residence” of the aspirant. The parameter, of, residence, envisaged, as, a criteria for awarding of marks to aspirant/candidate necessitates its being anvilled upon, rather the actual place of living or habitation of an aspirant or a candidate, even if, it be other than the one, where the land is being held by the aspirant or the candidate. Keeping in mind, the above parameter, it is held that the petitioner has neither established by cogent evidence comprised in her either holding a ration card issued by the Gram Panchayat, where the school is situated, hence, portraying the fact of her living or residing within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat concerned, nor has adduced any abstract of Parivar Register maintained by the Gram Panchayat, where the school is situated, for portraying and unearthing the fact of her being a member of the Panchayat or residing in that Panchayat. Consequently, the findings as recorded by the Enquiry Committee as also by the Deputy Commissioner, are affirmed and do not merit interference. As a sequel displaying of jamabandi qua land, if any, held by the petitioner in the Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri is of no significance, hence, was tenably ignored in both the Annexures, P4 and P-13. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged before this Court that the experience of the petitioner in teaching, comprised in or revealed by Annexures P-7, P-10 & P-11, have been omitted to be accorded weightage by the PTA committee. Such experience of the petitioner having come to be overlooked is contended to have sequeled indefensible non awarding of marks on account of teaching experience gained by her. However, on a perusal of the teaching experience of the petitioner, comprised in Annexure P-7, P-10 and P-11, it is manifest that she had experience of teaching History, whereas, the post against which she was appointed, was that of lecturer in Economics. Consequently, her experience in teaching, a subject for whose teaching she was not appointed, is, of no consequence and significance. Besides this, the petitioner, has omitted to portray before the Officers, who rendered Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-13, that, hence, her teaching experience be reckoned with. Consequently, her experience in teaching, a subject for whose teaching she was not appointed, is, of no consequence and significance. Besides this, the petitioner, has omitted to portray before the Officers, who rendered Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-13, that, hence, her teaching experience be reckoned with. Consequently, at this stage, her contention qua non awarding of marks on the strength of teaching experience is belated, improved or an afterthought. She having omitted to claim the awarding of marks on the score aforesaid, at the earliest, hence, she is estopped to do so at this stage before this Court. Therefore, it is palpably imminent that the orders comprised in Annexure P-4 and P-13, are, in consonance with the directions of this Court. Moreso, when they do not betray that the selection committee had neither adopted an objective criterion nor had proceeded arbitrarily in making selections. The officers, who rendered Annexure P-4 and P-13, apparently viewed the entire controversy inter se the parties with deep objectivity and bereft of any interestedness or any bias. As such, given the fact that all the relevant parameters were taken into consideration, as also, the fact that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard and, hence, she remained not condemned unheard before the rendition of decisions, aforesaid, so as to render them to be afflicted with the vice of transgression of the principle of natural justice, they are, obviously, to be revered. 6. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that even if, there is some delay in the institution of the complaint against the petitioner in the assailing of her appointment, the preponderant fact of, lack of accomplishment of the eligibility criteria by the petitioner, tenably deprived her to score marks on either of the contentious heads. 7. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed, so also, the pending application(s), if any. No costs.