Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 521 (UTT)

Sartaj Singh Sajwan v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-11-03

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. In a grant-in-aid private school known as “Inter College, Kotalgaon, Patti Bhadura” a post of Assistant Clerk fell vacant and consequently an advertisement was issued for the selection and appointment of a suitable person to the said post. The advertisement was issued by the Management Committee on 24.08.2014 in which 38 candidates applied out of which 26 candidates were found eligible and were called for interview on 22.11.2014 in which finally 17 candidates appeared. The petitioner – Dinesh Singh Pokhriyal (in WPSS No. 175 of 2015) and respondent No. 6 – Manmodh Singh (in WPSS No. 332 of 2015) were the candidates to the said post. After selection process, respondent No. 6 (in WPSS No. 332 of 2015) was selected, as he obtained the highest marks and was recommended for appointment by the selection committee. The appointment of respondent No. 6 (in WPSS No. 332 of 2015) has been challenged by the petitioner, who is the Principal of Inter College, Kotalgaon, Patti Bhadura, Tehsil Pratap Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal as well as petitioner – Dinesh Singh Pokhariyal (in WPSS No. 175 of 2015), who was a candidate for the said post. 2. For the facts, we have referred here pertains to WPSS No. 332 of 2015. It is again an admitted fact that petitioner in WPSS No. 332 of 2015 is the father-in-law of petitioner – Dinesh Singh Pokhriyal in WPSS No. 175 of 2015, who has not been selected in the said process. The reasons as to why the petitioner – Sartaj Singh Sajwan (the son-in-law) has challenged the appointment and selection of respondent No. 6 – Manmodh Singh is that the selected candidate – Manmodh Singh had allegedly submitted a false certificate relating to his experience and on enquiry subsequently it has been found that his certificate is not genuine, and therefore, it is submitted here that his appointed could not have been made. 3. Another additional plea which has been taken by the petitioner – Sartaj Singh Sajwan is that the entire selection process was wrong and he had made a complaint to the Chief Education Officer in this regard, who had passed an order saying that regarding the selection process a complaint has been made on which presently an enquiry is being made, and therefore, the selection and appointment of any person on the said post cannot be approved. The reasons why Chief Education Officer has said so is that meanwhile, the Management Committee had approved the selection of respondent No. 6 and had given him an appointment subject to the approval of the Chief Education Officer. Consequently, the Chief Education Officer rejected the approval citing reasons such as its alleged anomaly in the selection and also the fact that presently an enquiry is going on in the matter. 4. The respondent No. 6 has filed its counter affidavit and the counter affidavit has also been filed by the State Government as well. 5. From the perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that the enquiry which was conducted in the matter was on several aspects. There were allegations of bribe being given to the authority, which has not been proved and to that the filing of complaint itself was held to be baseless. 6. Important thing to be noted here is that there was no complaint as regarding respondent No. 6 not having the requisite qualification or that he had submitted a false certificate. Consequently, there is no finding on that aspect, as the State relied upon a condition of regulation 39 sub-section (9) of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 wherein it has been stated that no person would be eligible for appointment in an education institution, if he is related to any member of the Management of Committee, or to the principal. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner – Dinesh Singh Pokhariyal (in WPSS No. 175 of 2015) is the son-in-law of the Principal (who is petitioner in WPSS No. 332 of 2015) and is hence related to him and hence as far as this petitioner (in WPSS No. 175 of 2015) is concerned he could not have been considered for the said post. In all fairness petitioner i.e. Sartaj Singh Sajwan (who was the Principal) should have rejected the application of petitioner – Dinesh Singh Pokhriyal, as he was his son-in-law. 8. From the perusal of records which has been made available by the private respondent it is further clear that out of 25 marks which were fixed for interview initially the maximum marks was 18 granted to the petitioner, but later on there is an interpolation and it has been changed to 20 marks and the reason which has been assigned for giving such marks is that the petitioner has got eight years of experience. 9. 9. The law on this aspect is that the Selection Committee should give maximum 18 marks out of 25 marks to a candidate, but in case it is inclined to give higher marks then, it must assign reason for doing so. It is for this reason that the Selection Committee considered the name of Dinesh Singh Pokhriyal, as he is the son-in-law of one of the members of the Management of Committee i.e. Principal (who is petitioner in WPSS No. 332 of 2015). 10. In view thereof, as far as the candidature of the petitioner (in WPSS No. 175 of 2015) is concerned, it was not even liable to be considered and for this reason WPSS No. 175 of 2015 filed by the petitioner – Dinesh Singh Pokhriyal, who is the son-in-law of one of the members of the Management of Committee is hereby dismissed. 11. As far as the petition filed by Sartaj Singh Sajwan, who is the Principal of Institute/School is concerned, the petition should not have been filed by the petitioner for the simple reason that his main motive before this Court is not regarding any anomalies in the selection but regarding the fact that his son-in-law has not been selected! It is clearly evident. 12. Therefore, the writ petition (S/S) No. 332 of 2015 filed by the Principal of the school is also dismissed, subject to one caveat i.e. in case there is a complaint regarding respondent No. 6 – Manmodh Singh that he has submitted false certificates then his candidature should also be rejected. 13. Let the same be examined by the Chief Education Officer and in case he is satisfied with the certificate, its genuine and bona fide, he shall forthwith give appointment to respondent No. 6. In case, the authority concerned finds any anomaly regarding the said document, he shall proceed afresh, in accordance with law, to fill up the said post.