Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 163 (HP)

Ved Prakash v. State of H. P.

2016-03-01

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral) The petitioner alongwith the other aspirants appeared before the interviewing board concerned for theirs being considered for selection and consequent appointment as PET on PTA basis in Government Sr. Secondary School, Kaflah, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. H.P. The interviewing board constituted for interviewing the aspirants claiming theirs being considered for selection and consequent appointment against the post concerned, awarded marks to them against the various columns drawn up in Annexure R-1. On a totaling of the marks awarded to each of the aspirants against various columns, the writ petitioner secured the highest marks. Hence he was selected by the interviewing board concerned as PET on PTA basis in the school concerned. In pursuance to his standing selected for the post aforesaid, he was appointed in the school concerned as PET on PTA basis. 2. However his appointment was challenged at the instance of the unsuccessful candidates including respondents No. 4 to 6. The ground, on which the selection and consequent appointment of the petitioner in the capacity aforesaid in the school concerned, stood assailed, stood constituted in the factum of the interviewing board concerned discounting the merit of the respective aspirants rather theirs untenably earmarking a disproportionately high 7 marks for allocation thereof to them on an assessment of their personality through a viva voce whereupon they concomitantly proceeded to thereunder allocate marks to the aspirants vis-à-vis their merit underscored in the apposite columns. The earmarking by the interviewing board concerned of the aforesaid disproportionately high 7 marks for interview for their allocation to the aspirants, was contended by the un-successful candidates to facilitate the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner. It was also contended by the unsuccessful candidates that given the connectivity in relation of the writ petitioner with the Pradhan who was also a member of the interviewing board sequelled a biased allocation thereunder in his favour by all the members of the interviewing board. The authority seized of the complaint proceeded to under Annexure P-1 countenance the contention of the unsuccessful candidates sequelling the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner standing set aside. An appeal therefrom was carried by the writ petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla who under Annexure P-3 dismissed it. Hence the present writ petition before this Court. 3. The authority seized of the complaint proceeded to under Annexure P-1 countenance the contention of the unsuccessful candidates sequelling the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner standing set aside. An appeal therefrom was carried by the writ petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla who under Annexure P-3 dismissed it. Hence the present writ petition before this Court. 3. Both the authorities below in their respective orders comprised in Annexure P-1 and P-3 have dwelt upon the factum of enunciation of parameters constituted in a notification of 27th May, 2008. The parameters enshrined therein unveil the factum of no marks being either awardable or allocable to any of the aspirants under the head “Interview”. Consequently, it was concurrently held by both the authorities above qua awarding of marks by the interviewing board concerned on theirs evaluating and assessing the personality of the aspirants being both whimsical as well discardable. In sequel, the complainants/respondents No. 4 to 6 herein succeeded. However, the learned Deputy Advocate General with force and candor apprises this Court of the process for selection and appointment of PET on PTA basis standing initiated and commenced in the year 2007. He also awakens this Court qua the factum of notification of 27th May, 2008 not being given any retrospectivity. Given the lack of retrospectivity to the notification of 27th May, 2008 especially to the apposite stage of initiation of process for selection and appointment of the petitioner in the capacity aforesaid, its invocation besides application by both the authorities was wholly unwarranted. In sequel, any reliance thereupon by both the authorities below is grossly untenable. 4. The drawing up of the relevant parameters by the interviewing board in Annexure R-1 comprising therein an empowerment to the members of the interviewing board to award marks on an evaluation n of the personality of the candidates who appeared before it, though stand not embodied in the notification of 2008, nonetheless the aforesaid lack of retrospectivity to it to the stage apposite to the initiation of selection and appointment of a suitable candidate as PET on PTA basis in the school concerned renders the earmarking of 7 marks by the interviewing board for allotment thereunder to the aspirants on an assessment of their personality besides any concomitant allotment thereunder to them to be neither untenable nor arbitrary. Apart therefrom since the Interviewing board concerned was enjoined to select a suitable candidate to the post concerned, an appearance before it of each of the aspirants was imperative. Also the gauging or evaluating of their personality was a necessary concomitant of their personal appearance before them. Moreover the earmarking besides allocation of marks to each of the aspirants on their personality standing gauged, cannot hence be construed to be suffering from vice of absurdity or perversity. Consequently, even if 7 marks stood reserved and earmarked for allotment to the aspirants on an assessment or evaluation of their personality by the members of the interviewing board besides when any marks thereunder stood allocated to the aspirants does not for reiteration render both the earmarking thereof nor any allocation thereof to the aspirants to be either perse unreasonable or capricious. A close scrutiny of Annexure R-1 unravels the factum of three members constituting the interviewing board i.e. Pradhan, Secretary and the Subject Expert. The Pradhan allocated 6 marks to the writ petitioner. However the allotment of 6 marks by the Pradhan to the writ petitioner stand assailed on the ground of his standing connected in relation to the latter. Nonetheless, the learned Deputy Advocate General clarified during the course of arguments that the Pradhan was not a close blood relation of the petitioner nor directly related to the petitioner. Any real likelihood of bias, if any, hence gripping his mind in awarding 6 marks to the petitioner cannot withstand the rigor of logic rather gets dispelled given the factum of there being no material on record denotative of the factum of the subject matter expert standing influenced by the Pradhan in his coming to award 7 marks to the petitioner on his discerning besides evaluating his personality for assessing his suitability for selection to the post concerned. Further more with the Secretary awarding marks to the petitioner less than the one awarded to him by the Pradhan discounts any inference of the members of the interviewing board standing in any manner influenced by the Pradhan who purportedly stood connected in relation to the petitioner nor any inference can be reared of there existing any real likelihood of bias in their respective minds while theirs awarding marks to the petitioner on theirs evaluating his personality on his appearance before them. For the reasons aforesaid, there is merit in the petition, the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are interfered with and the same are quashed and set aside. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.