Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1762 (HP)

Indra Devi v. State of H. P.

2015-12-02

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(i) That entire record pertaining to the present case, may kindly be summoned and examined. (ii) That the selection of the respondent No. 5 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and petitioner may kindly be allowed to be appointed against the post of PGT in Govt. Sr. Sec. School Bughar, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan, HP being a meritorious candidate.” 2. One post of Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science was lying vacant in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bughar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The post was proposed to be filled up through School Management Committee under the policy framed by the respondents-State for appointment of teachers through School Management Committees. Petitioner and respondent No. 5 alongwith other candidates had applied for the post in question. They were interviewed by a Selection Committee comprising SDM, Arki, President School Management Committee and Principal-cum- Member Secretary, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bughar on 6th December, 2014. The criteria for distribution of marks to assess the merit of a candidate to the post is Annexure P-1. The evaluation sheet Annexure P-1 reveals that so far as the academic qualification is concerned, the petitioner being B.A., B.Ed. and Post Graduate also was higher in merit as compared to respondent No. 5 and for that matter other candidates, who appeared in the interview because out of 50 marks prescribed for academic qualification, her score is 27.5 followed by the score of respondent No. 5, which is 26.1. The Selection Committee, more particularly President of the School Management Committee-respondent No. 4 has awarded 10 marks out of 10 to respondent No. 5, whereas only two marks to the petitioner. As regards the remaining two members, while the Chairman i.e. SDM, Arki has awarded 8 marks to the petitioner, 9 to respondent No. 5 and the Principal of the School 8 marks each to the petitioner and respondent No. 5. It is writ large from the face of record that on account of 10 marks out of 10 awarded in personal interview by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5, he ultimately succeeded to top the merit list and secured the appointment against the post in question. 3. It is writ large from the face of record that on account of 10 marks out of 10 awarded in personal interview by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5, he ultimately succeeded to top the merit list and secured the appointment against the post in question. 3. The complaint is that the petitioner being more meritorious from academic point of view in all fairness was entitled to be selected against the post in question. However, it is on account of extraneous consideration and political reasons the Selection Committee particularly President of respondent No. 4 has favoured respondent No. 5 and awarded marks to which he was not entitled. Also that the respondent No. 4 has given 10 marks out of 10 to respondent No. 5 and thereby defeated her legitimate claim. 4. In reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondents- State, its stand is that all the members have awarded the marks to the candidate appeared in the interview and also that only requirement under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules qua essential qualification was that the candidate should possess 50% marks in Post Graduate. The stand of the respondents-State , therefore, is that the merit was not the criteria and rather it is the condition of 50% marks in Post Graduate the only requirement for selection against the post in question. 5. Respondent No. 4 has not opted for putting appearance. As regards respondent No. 5 on his behalf, the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondents-State has been adopted as stated by Learned Counsel at the Bar. It is urged that selection of the said respondent is in accordance with the Rules and as such, he has rightly been appointed against the post in question. 6. There cannot be any dispute so far as the merit of the petitioner is concerned because on academic side she is more meritorious as compared to respondent No. 5. As a matter of fact, a teacher should be proficient on academic side. The ranking of the petitioner was higher as compared to respondent No. 5 so far as the educational qualification is concerned. As a matter of fact, a teacher should be proficient on academic side. The ranking of the petitioner was higher as compared to respondent No. 5 so far as the educational qualification is concerned. Even in personal interview also she has been adjudged equally by two members out of three and it is the 3rd member i.e. President of the School Management Committee who has given 10 marks out of 10 to respondent No. 5 whereas 2 marks to the petitioner. The awarding of 10 marks out of 10 in personal interview to respondent No. 5 has vitiated the entire selection proceedings. The possibility of the President of School Management Committee having awarded such marks to respondent No. 5 due to some extraneous consideration or for oblique motive cannot be ruled out. Otherwise also, the President of respondent No. 4-Committee being only middle pass was not at all competent and qualified to assess the ability and fitness of a candidate having Post Graduate qualification for the post of Lecturer. The respondent No. 4, therefore, has definitely helped respondent No. 5 out of way with a view to enable him to get selected and oust the petitioner who was more meritorious. The selection process, therefore, is vitiated and as such the appointment of respondent No. 5 is not legally sustainable. 7. Anyhow, the said respondent stands appointed. However, in terms of the interim order passed in CMP No. 2814 of 2015, his appointment is subject to the outcome of the writ petition, meaning thereby that his appointment as Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science in the school not confer any legitimate right upon him to continue as such any further. 8. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this writ petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the selection of respondent No. 5 as Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bughar is quashed and set aside. There shall be a direction to respondent No. 1 to arrange for initiating selection process afresh in terms of the policy and to ensure that fair selection is made. The 2nd respondent to advertise the post afresh and make selection thereafter. The selection process be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 9. The 2nd respondent to advertise the post afresh and make selection thereafter. The selection process be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 9. Before parting, it is expected from the respondents-State to consider in the larger public interest that a person having middle standard as his qualification should be made as part of the selection process to be initiated under the Scheme for making selection of the candidates having Post Graduation as their qualification for the post of Lecturer. 10. The writ0 petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.