Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1209 (HP)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of H. P.

2015-09-01

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur 1. The learned Deputy Advocate General Submits that he has instructions on behalf of respondent No.1 to adopt the reply filed by respondent No.2, hence, the learned Deputy Advocate General is relieved of his duty to institute on behalf of respondent No.1 a separate reply to the writ petition. 2. Respondents No.1 and 2 issued a notification for filling up post of Gram Rojgar Sewak in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The eligible aspirants applied for theirs being considered for selection to the post aforesaid. The duly constituted Interviewing Committee in the interview held on 1.07.2008 selected respondent No.3. On hers being selected, respondents No.1 and 2 issued an appointment letter to her for hers being posted as Gram Rozgar Sewak. However, the petitioner herein challenged before the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur the appointment of respondent No.3 as Gram Rozgar Sewak. 3. This Court has heard counsel on either sides. A perusal of the merit list drawn up by the Interviewing Committee concerned, upsurges the imminent fact of respondent No.3 having secured the highest marks and hers being succeeded in merit by respondent No.4, whereas, the petitioner herein has secured the third position. The gravamen of the challenge laid by the petitioner herein before the authority concerned against the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 as Gram Rojgar Sewak was embedded in the factum of the Interviewing Committee concerned having awarded 10 marks to respondent No.3 on the score of hers possessing a diploma in computer application, besides having awarded 10 marks for hers possessing experience of working as Computer Operator. The untenability of meting of the marks aforesaid by the Interviewing Committee concerned to respondent No.3 is anvilled upon the factum of the diploma in computer training and trade held by respondent No.3 as manifested in Annexure P-5 for hers being construed to be possessing proficiency in computer data entry is false and fabricated. The untenability of meting of the marks aforesaid by the Interviewing Committee concerned to respondent No.3 is anvilled upon the factum of the diploma in computer training and trade held by respondent No.3 as manifested in Annexure P-5 for hers being construed to be possessing proficiency in computer data entry is false and fabricated. Concomitantly, it was canvassed before the Authority concerned that the experience possessed by respondent No.3 constituted in Annexure P-6 whereupon 10 marks were meted to respondent No.3 by the Interviewing Committee concerned, too could not be tenably awarded or meted in favour of respondent No.3 as the proficiency possessed by respondent No.3 in computer data entry unravelled by hers possessing diploma in regard thereto comprised in Annexure P-5 which being fabricated rendered the experience acquired by respondent No.3 by working as a Computer Operator cum Data Entry Operator at ALMA constituted in Annexure P-6 to be also stripped of its vigour. 4. Before proceeding to test the vigour of the submissions addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein to constrain it to interfere with the findings and conclusions recorded by the authority concerned comprised in Annexure P-4, it is necessary to extract the apposite portions of Annexure P-1 which enunciate the factum of the aspirants concerting to seek selection and appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak being enjoined to possess proficiency in computer data entry. The relevant portion of the notification comprised in Annexure P-1 reads as under: “(i) Minimum educational qualification: The candidate to be deployed as Gram Rozgar Sewak must possess minimum education qualification as under: (i) Matric with second division or 10+2 from Board of School Education recognzied by the Himachal Pradesh Government. (ii) Proficiency in computer data entry.” Moreover, it is also necessary to extract the other relevant portion of Annexure P-1 which postulates the manner of awarding of marks by the Interviewing Committee to the aspirants who concert to seek selection and consequent appointment to the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak. The relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “(3) Distribution of Marks: In order to make out merit of the candidates appeared before the selection committee the maximum marks would be 100 to be distributed in the following manner:- (I).......................................... (I)........................................ (II)............................................... (III).......................................... (IV) Having basic course in computer 10 marks application (3 months duration) (B) Experience. The relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “(3) Distribution of Marks: In order to make out merit of the candidates appeared before the selection committee the maximum marks would be 100 to be distributed in the following manner:- (I).......................................... (I)........................................ (II)............................................... (III).......................................... (IV) Having basic course in computer 10 marks application (3 months duration) (B) Experience. (Two marks shall be awarded for every one : Subject to year of experience in relevant nature of the maximum of duties in any Panchayati Raj Institution/ 10 marks RDD/watershed projects/Government office/Government undertaking/Institution or experience of working as computer operator in any institution).” 5. A perusal of the afore extracted relevant portion of Annexure P-1 manifests the obvious fact of the Interviewing Committee concerned being empowered to award 10 marks to a candidate possessing a basic course in computer application, besides an advertence to the germane portion of Annexure P-1 disinters the factum of its empowering the Interviewing Committee concerned to award marks for experience garnered by an aspirant by rendering or performing work in the capacity of a computer operator in any institution. Consequently, with the aforesaid relevant portions of the rules empowering the interviewing committee concerned to award 10 marks to an aspirant possessing a basic course in computer application, besides to award two marks for every year of experience obtained by an aspirant while rendering duties as a computer operator in any institution, in sequel, the awarding of 10 marks by the Interviewing Committee concerned to respondent No.3 while hers possessing Annexure P-5 displaying the fact of hers holding a diploma personifying her proficiency in computer data entry, besides the awarding of 10 marks to her by the Interviewing Committee concerned on score of Annexure P-6, the certificate of experience displaying the apposite factum of respondent No.3 having rendered work in the capacity of a Computer Operator-cum-Data Entry Operator at ALMA Information Technology Swarghat, District Bialspur, H.P., for five years, cannot be discounted on the ground of its suffering from any infirmity rather when the relevant portion of the rules extracted hereinabove empower the Interviewing Committee concerned to award two marks for every year of experience in the capacity aforesaid, obviously when as pronounced by Annexure P-6, with respondent No.3 herein having rendered work in the apposite capacity for five years, as a corollary fortifyingly then the meting of 10 marks to her for hers possessing experience while hers having rendered duties as Computer Operator-cum-Data Entry Operator, was wholly vindicable, besides justifiable. 6. Now the trite controversy which necessitates being put to rest is whether both Annexures P-5 and P-6 are false and fabricated so as to render the awarding of marks on their anvill by the Interviewing Committee concerned to respondent No.3 to be grossly unwarranted. While gauging the onslaught on score aforesaid to Annexures P-5 and P-6 by the learned counsel for the petitioner and theirs concomitantly impinging upon the marks thereupon awarded to respondent No.3 by the Interviewing Committee concerned, it is necessary to bear in mind Annexure P- 4 which is the impugned order rendered by the Authority concerned. Its incisive reading portrays that it had in extenso while eliciting an affidavit of the owner of the institution wherein respondent No.3 had acquired experience in tandem with the prescription of the apposite rules as a computer operator-cum-Data Entry Operator for five years w.e.f. 01.04.2003 to 30.04.2008, dwelt upon its probative worth besides its legal efficacy, hence, imputed truth to it, besides concomitantly fastened truth to Annexure P-6. The owner of the institution aforesaid had preceding the rendition by the authority concerned comprised in Annexure P-4 tendered his affidavit aforesaid. The apposite factum aforesaid as displayed in the affidavit of the owner of the institution concerned wherefrom respondent No.3 had obtained an experience certificate, on anvill whereof she was meted out 10 marks for hers having worked therein in the apposite capacity, though was open to be repulsed or countered or repudiated by the petitioner herein by concerting to cross-examine the owner of the institution concerned. Nonetheless, it appears on a reading of the impugned order that the petitioner herein did not concert to avail any opportunity though could have been made available in case sought, besides when its denial to the petitioner herein by the authority concerned is not evinceable by demonstrable material on record, to shred apart truth thereof. Consequently, in face of the petitioner having omitted to concert, besides having abandoned to exercise his right to rip it of its veracity in any manner known to law at an appropriate stage, in sequel, it is not open to the petitioner herein to before the writ Court make an endeavour to impute falsity to the affidavit sworn by the owner of the institute concerned, whereupon the authority concerned imputed truth to Annexure P-6. Obviously then for reiteration, it is not open to the counsel for the petitioner to canvass before this Court that the fastening of veracity or truth to annexure P-6 by the authority concerned was not embedded upon any tangible or legally sound material. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioner herein has vehemently canvassed that Annexure P-5 which is a diploma obtained by respondent No.3 from the institute concerned, in satiation of hers possessing a basic course in computer applications on score whereof 10 marks in consonance with the apposite rules was meted to respondent No.3 is also false and fabricated. Nonetheless, the said facet of falsity being acquired by Annnexure P-5 too has come to be ad nauseam dwelt upon by the authority concerned. The authority concerned while fastening legitimacy to Annexure P-5 has relied upon the affidavits sworn by the students, who along with respondent No.3 had prosecuted studies in the subject concerned in the institute concerned and on completion of course had obtained from the institute concerned a diploma. The authority concerned while fastening legitimacy to Annexure P-5 has relied upon the affidavits sworn by the students, who along with respondent No.3 had prosecuted studies in the subject concerned in the institute concerned and on completion of course had obtained from the institute concerned a diploma. The affidavits sworn by the students, who along with respondent No.3 herein completed the curriculum in the institute concerned and on completion whereof had obtained the necessary diploma, for hence infusing Annexure P-5 with probative succor, have not been endeavoured to be repulsed by the petitioner herein before the authority concerned by cross-examining the aforesaid colleagues of respondent No.3 at the time of theirs tendering into evidence affidavits containing the portrayals aforesaid. The omission on the part of the petitioner herein to in the aforesaid manner at the apposite stage rip or shred apart the veracities of the affidavits of the colleagues of respondent No.3 herein while supporting respondent No.3 of hers having along with them studied in the institute concerned and on completion of the course, the necessary diploma having been issued respectively in their favour, cannot now equip the learned counsel for the petitioner to in writ proceedings concert to shred apart their veracities. In aftermath, the reliance by the authority concerned upon the aforesaid material and thereupon imputing legitimacy to Annexures P-5 and P-6 cannot be said to be ridden with any infirmity. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has adverted to Annexure P-7 for dispelling the efficacy of Annexure P-6. However, in Annexure P-7 there is a portrayal of respondent No.3 having performed duties as a part time agent under Mahila Pradhan Kashetriya Bachat Yojna. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has adverted to Annexure P-7 for dispelling the efficacy of Annexure P-6. However, in Annexure P-7 there is a portrayal of respondent No.3 having performed duties as a part time agent under Mahila Pradhan Kashetriya Bachat Yojna. Nonetheless, the petitioner herein having not before the authority concerned relied upon the said material nor placed any adequate material before it to pronounce the fact that even while respondent No.3 as pronounced by Annexure P-7 was performing duties as a part time Mahila Pradhan Kashetriya Bachat Yojna was required to throughout the day perform at the place depicted therein duties in the aforesaid capacity so as to preclude her to perform duties as a Computer Operator-cum-Data Entry Operator at ALMA, besides when the counsel for the petitioner abstained though he could have before the authority concerned placed on record apposite and cogent material to pronounce that respondent No.3 while performing her duties in the capacity as pronounced in Annexure P-6 was required to perform duties therein throughout the day. Consequently, it appears that even when it stands pronounced by Annexure P-7 of respondent No.3 working as a part time agent of Mahila Pradhan Kashetriya Bachat, the disclosure therein would not to the considered mind of this Court conflict with for the reasons aforesaid with the performance of duties by respondent No.3 in the capacity as enunciated in Annexure P-6. Preponderantly, the concerts herein by the learned counsel for the petitioner to over come the efficacy of Annexure P-6 when remained un-exercised at his instance before the authority concerned cannot repulse the conclusions and findings recorded by the authority concerned in the impugned Annexure P-4 nor hence it can be concluded that the authority concerned discarded the unadduced aforesaid material, necessarily then any reliance by the counsel for the petitioner upon Annexure P-7 to benumb the efficacy of Annexure P-6 without there being any apposite portrayals constituted in the aforesaid materials which however were receivable before the authority concerned and have remained unadduced before it, would sequel gross injustice. 7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.