Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 756 (HP)

Namesh Kumar v. State of H. P

2015-06-24

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The respondent-University advertised a post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Education. The advertised post aforesaid was reserved for “other backward classes”. The petitioner belongs to the said category. In pursuance to the post aforesaid having come to be advertised, the petitioner applied for his being considered for selection and appointment against the post aforesaid. The respondent- University served a call letter upon the petitioner for warranting his appearance on 12.5.2012 before the Interviewing committee. The petitioner, though had initially concerted to by applying under RTI obtain information from the respondent aforesaid qua the result of the interview conducted aforesaid. Yet, his initial endeavor to elicit information from the respondent concerned qua the result of the interview conducted on 12.5.2012, remained futile. Nonetheless, the petitioner re-endeavored and re-concerted to obtain information qua the result of the interview conducted by the respondent to the advertised post of Assistant Professor by applying to the concerned under RTI. The information applied for, came to be furnished to the petitioner by the respondents concerned on 28.2.2014. On the petitioner receiving information qua the result of the interview conducted by the respondent concerned on 12.5.2012, he was startled to know that the respondent No.3 stood selected, whereas his candidature suffered rejection on the ground of the respondent having, not in the scoresheet awarded to him five marks for “publications”, even though the interviewing committee concerned in the previous interview for the same post had meted to him five marks on the parameter of “publications”. 2. The Respondents have filed detailed reply(s) to the writ petition, wherein the gravamen of their contest is qua the tenability of the grievance ventilated by the petitioner in the writ petition being devoid of any force or vigour. The respondent No.3 in his reply to the writ petition has contended that the petition is barred by delay and laches, inasmuch, as, the petition has been filed on 2.6.2014 whereas his selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, in the department of education occurred in the year 2012. The respondent No.3 in his reply to the writ petition has contended that the petition is barred by delay and laches, inasmuch, as, the petition has been filed on 2.6.2014 whereas his selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, in the department of education occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, a contention is reared in the reply of the respondent No.3 that, as such with an inordinate delay having occurred in the institution of the writ petition at the instance of the writ petitioner and the delay having remained un-explained, the grievance ventilated by the petitioner in his petition entails its outright rejection and dismissal. On the other hand, the contention as foisted in the reply of the respondents No.1 and 2 to omit or to abstain from awarding five marks to the petitioner on the parameter of “publications” in the scoresheet apposite to him, is grooved in the factum of the petitioner having, not at the time of his appearing before the interviewing board produced before it, the necessarily enjoined “publications” for warranting the awarding of five marks to him thereon. The gravamen or the core controversy which exists interse the parties at contest is whether the omission on the part of the respondent/interviewing board concerned to abstain or to omit to accord five marks to the petitioner on the parameter of “publications” for his withholding the apposite papers on whose anchorage he could tenably foist a claim for marks apposite to them being awarded in his favour on the parameter of afoersaid, is justified or not. Obviously, the espousal of the respondents No. 1 and 2, of the interviewing committee concerned omitting to or abstaining to award five marks to the petitioner arising from his withholding the apposite papers, whose production alone would have enjoined upon the interviewing board to award him five marks as claimed by him does arouse the vindication of this Court. Obviously, the espousal of the respondents No. 1 and 2, of the interviewing committee concerned omitting to or abstaining to award five marks to the petitioner arising from his withholding the apposite papers, whose production alone would have enjoined upon the interviewing board to award him five marks as claimed by him does arouse the vindication of this Court. Nonetheless the factum of the petitioner having previously come to be interviewed on 23.9.2010 for the very same post by the interviewing board concerned and the latter having proceeded to award five marks for the petitioner’s then holding the papers/documents necessary for his being awarded five marks on the parameter of “publications”, is not to be slighted, rather is a preeminent fact which would facilitate, hence an inference, for the reasons to be afforded hereinafter that the subsequent omission on the part of the interviewing board/committee concerned to award five marks to the petitioner for his withholding papers apposite to constrain the interviewing board concerned to award five marks on the parameter of “publications”, suffers from non-application of mind as well as is flawed and misconceived. A perusal of Annexure P-1 manifestly upsurges the factum of the petitioner having come to be awarded five marks on the parameter of “publications”. The said marks were meted in favour of the petitioner by the interviewing board concerned only on his producing or furnishing at the time of his appearing before it, the documents/papers apposite to his warranting the interviewing board/committee concerned to award him five marks on the parameter apposite to them. The inference, which generates, in the Interviewing committee concerned in the year 2010 when the petitioner appeared before it, for his being considered for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Education and his being awarded five marks on the parameter of “publications”, is that he was possessed of the papers apposite to constrain the Interviewing Board concerned to award him five marks on the parameter of “publications”. Necessarily then an apt conclusion which concomitantly surges forth is that the petitioner did hold as well as possess then the necessary papers/documents empowering him to warrant from the interviewing committee concerned before whom he previously appeared, the awarding of five marks to him on the parameter of “publications”. Necessarily then an apt conclusion which concomitantly surges forth is that the petitioner did hold as well as possess then the necessary papers/documents empowering him to warrant from the interviewing committee concerned before whom he previously appeared, the awarding of five marks to him on the parameter of “publications”. The ground as mooted by respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply(s) that the omission on the part of the respondents aforesaid to abstain or not award him five marks on the parameter of “publications” is prodded by the fact of the petitioner withholding the necessary/apposite papers to constrain the meting to him of five marks on the parameter of “publications”, is a wholly contrived stratagem on the part of interviewing board concerned to foist a wholly rudderless plea to oust the petitioner from selection by omitting to him five marks on the ground of “publications”, whereas in the previously held interview the interviewing board concerned constituted by the respondents had proceeded to award five marks to the petitioner, on the parameter of “publications”. In other words, the mere omission on the part of the petitioner to omit to produce the apposite documents/papers before the interviewing board concerned subsequent to 2010, especially when on his appearing previously before the Interviewing committee concerned, he did possess or hold the necessary papers for his being meted five marks to him on the parameter of “publications” is neither a vigorous nor a sinewed ground available to the respondents to vindicate the omission on their part to omit to award five marks on the parameter of “publications”. Fortifyingly so, when the records of the previous interview in which the petitioner participated in the year 2010 were also available with the respondents, concomitantly then with the existence or of the holding of apposite records with/by the respondents, would have enabled as well as facilitated the interviewing committee concerned, to when the petitioner appeared before it, rely upon his previous scoresheet even without insisting upon the petitioner to produce the papers relevant and apposite to his exacting a tenable demand from the interviewing committee concerned to proceed to award him five marks on the parameter of “publications”, sequelly its having omitted to do so has upsurged an unwarranted act on the part of the interviewing committee concerned to omit to award to the petitioner five marks on the parameter of “publications”. Necessarily then nonproduction of the apposite papers by the petitioner before the interviewing committee concerned at the time of his participating in the subsequent interview ought not to have constrained the interviewing committee concerned to omit to award five marks to him on the parameter of “publications”. Moreso, when no apposite material exists before this Court, to conclude that the petitioner had not at the time of his appearing before the interviewing committee concerned proclaimed the factum of his having been awarded five marks previously by the interviewing committee on the parameter of “publications”. Obviously then, it has to be concluded that he did proclaim before the interviewing committee concerned that in the previous interview he had been meted out five marks in the scoresheet for the very same post on the parameter of “publications”, necessarily then it was incumbent upon the interviewing board concerned to, dehors the withholding of the apposite papers, by the petitioner proceed to while relying upon the previous scoresheet of the petitioner transpose, in the score sheet of the petitioner apposite to the subsequently held interview, five marks, as had been awarded to him previously on the parameter of “publications”. It having omitted to make such an endeavor and its sequelly having omitted to award five marks to the petitioner on the score of “publications” on the flimsy pretext of, withholding of the apposite papers by the petitioner to constrain the interviewing committee to award him five marks on the parameter of “publications”, is a flawed as well as a fallible plea which cannot come to be countenanced by this Court. 3. Even though, the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 has been challenged at the instance of the petitioner after a lapse of two years, nonetheless the factum of a belated institution of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner would not afflict the writ petition either with the vice of delay and laches nor it would oust the petitioner to claim the relief as ventilated in the writ petition. The reasons for concluding so, is anchored upon the fact of the petitioner having in his writ petition manifested the palpable fact of his having acquired knowledge or information qua the result of the post for which he applied, only in the year 2014 on his having been supplied the apposite information by the respondents on his having instituted an application under RTI before them, whereupon he promptly instituted the writ petition. Now given the fact that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the result of the post for which he as well as the respondent No.3 applied for in the year 2014 and his having in quick spontaneity and with promptitude instituted the instant writ petition before this Court constitutes a sound and a formidable explanation for the belated institution of the petition at the instance of the petitioner against the selection and appointment of respondent No.3. Besides also hence given the prompt institution of the petition at the instance of the petitioner, from the date of acquisition of knowledge by him qua the result of the interview in which he and respondent No.3 had participated, leaves it to be bereft of any vice of delay and laches. The writ petition is accepted and respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to add to the score-sheet of the petitioner five marks on the parameter of “publications”. In case the petitioner then is ranked first, then subject to completion of all necessary formalities the respondent concerned shall proceed to in accordance with law appoint him to the post of Assistant Professor, Education. All pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly.