Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1781 (HP)

Vijay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-12-04

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- (i) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued quashing the Corrigendum dated 25.8.2012 (Annexure P-7) and Resolution dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure P-8). (ii) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to work as Jal Rakshak in Gram Panchayat Rajoul specifically Water Scheme Pheti Rajoul, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) in the interest of justice. 2. In 2006, the State of Himachal Pradesh issued a scheme thereby transferring the Rural Drinking Supply Schemes of the rural areas for their maintenance and operation to the Gram Panchayats. The object thereof was to strengthen the three tier Panchayati Raj Institutions. 3. In 2012, the revised guidelines for transfer of operation and maintenance of the Rural Drinking Supply Schemes, Panchayati Raj Institutions, came to be formulated, whereby the concerned Gram Panchayats were authorized by the Government to engage suitable persons (Jal Rakshak), who were paid a fixed honorarium of Rs. 750/- per month which was lateron revised to Rs. 1350/- per month. 4. On 15.3.2012, the State of Himachal Pradesh through the Irrigation and Public Health Department issued guidelines/instructions regarding the procedure to be adopted for selection of Jal Rakshak. In terms of these instructions, the Assistant Engineer (I&PH) of the concerned Sub Division was made the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat and Junior Engineer of the concerned Section (I&PH) had been made its members. 5. In pursuance to these guidelines, the respondents in June, 2012 initiated the process of filling up the posts of Jal Rakshak in Gram Panchayat, Rajoul and issued a public notice. The petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates applied for the same and was called for interview. On 25.7.2012, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner and on the basis of such recommendations, the Gram Panchayat on 23.8.2012 passed resolution No. 5 whereby it unanimously decided to offer the appointment to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates applied for the same and was called for interview. On 25.7.2012, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner and on the basis of such recommendations, the Gram Panchayat on 23.8.2012 passed resolution No. 5 whereby it unanimously decided to offer the appointment to the petitioner. 6. However, on 25.8.2012, a corrigendum came to be issued by respondent No. 2 whereby the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated on the ground that there was a clerical mistake in the date of birth of the petitioner which instead of 24.1.1971 had been recorded as 31.3.1982 and consequently respondent No. 4 who was next in the merit was ordered to be appointed in place of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has sought quashing of this corrigendum alongwith subsequent resolution passed by the Panchayat offering appointment to respondent No. 4 on various grounds as taken in the memo of petition. 8. The official respondents have filed their reply to the petition wherein they have raised various preliminary objections and that apart it has been specifically averred that since the name of the petitioner had been wrongly recommended, the petitioner could not be permitted to take any advantage of the same. After correction of the date of birth and on the basis of the revised marks scored by all the candidates, it was found that the petitioner had got 77 marks, whereas, respondent No. 4 had scored 79 marks and, therefore, being higher in merit was offered the appointment. 9. Respondent No. 4 has filed separate reply justifying therein his appointment on the ground of his being higher in merit. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 10. At the outset, it may be observed that the petitioner has neither challenged the selection criteria nor contested the factual position regarding the mistake of his age. Bearing in mind these two important facts, it would be noticed that as per the criteria of selection, the candidates depending upon their age were to be awarded the following marks:- 1.0 Physical fitness: Marks Maxi Marks Total Marks 1.1 Age Max Marks 15 18-19 10 20-22 11 23-25 12 26-36 15 37 to 39 14 40 to 42 13 43 to 45 12 >45 9 11. The initial age of the petitioner at the time of selection was recorded as 30 years, whereas, his actual age was 41 years. On the other hand, the age of respondent No. 4 was 30 years and accordingly the petitioner got 13 marks as his age fell between 40 to 42 years, whereas, respondent No. 4 was awarded 15 marks as he fell in the age group of 26-36 years. 12. Shri Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that respondent No. 4 could not have been considered let alone be selected as he was not the resident of the concerned Panchayat. This contention is without force because the respondent No. 4 has annexed copies of IRDP/BPL certificates issued by Gram Panchayat, Rajoul which clearly indicate and establish that respondent No. 4 infact is a resident of the area falling under Gram Panchayat, Rajoul. 13. No other point urged or arises for consideration. 14. As a sequel of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.