Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1697 (HP)

Chaman Lal v. State of H. P.

2016-08-16

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. By way of the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking similar treatment as is meted out to the candidates hailing from Patwar Circle, Khaneol Bagra of Gram Panchayat Shahout and Policy, namely, “Policy to appoint Teacher(s) through the School Management Committees purely on period basis in Elementary/Higher Education Departments of Himachal Pradesh in Tribal/Difficult Area(s)” (hereinafter referred to as “the Policy”) be quashed and set aside. 2. As per the petitioners, precisely the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 17.07.2012 the State of H.P. promulgated the Policy (supra) for engaging teachers through School Management Committees (hereinafter referred to as “SMC”) on period basis in Elementary/Higher Education department of Himachal Pradesh for tribal/difficult areas. As per the Policy, “Permanent resident of the concerned Panchayat where the Primary/Middle School Located will be awarded 10 marks for the Post Graduate Teacher”. It is further provided in the note appended to the Policy that “10 marks will be given to the candidates belonging to the concerned Panchayat in respect of Primary and Middle Schools and concerned Patwar Circle in respect of High and Senior Secondary School where the institution is located”. 3. The petitioner has further contended that Director of Higher Education, vide letter dated 20.09.2014 directed all the Deputy Directors of Higher Education to engage teachers through SMC and certain directions were also issued. The petitioner hails from Gram Panchayat Shahout, P.O. Khaneol Bagra, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. and there happens to be two Patwar Circles, i.e., Khaneol Bagra and Sainjli to their Panchayat. To this effect, the petitioners have also obtained the certificates. On 20.10.2014, an advertisement was published in Divya Himachal newspaper, inviting applications for engaging Lecturers of History, English and Hindi on period basis, through SMC, in Government Senior Secondary School, Khaneol Bagra. The petitioners, being eligible, applied for the said posts, i.e., petitioner No. 1 applied for the posts of Lecturers Hindi as well as History and petitioner No. 2 applied for the post of Lecturer Hindi. 4. As per the petitioners, when they appear for selection to the post of Teachers in Government Primary/Middle School, they are entitled to get 10 additional marks, being local residents. 4. As per the petitioners, when they appear for selection to the post of Teachers in Government Primary/Middle School, they are entitled to get 10 additional marks, being local residents. However, when they appear for selection to the post of Lecturer in government High/Higher Secondary School, Khaneol Bagra, they are disentitled to get 10 additional marks, reason being that they are not permanent residents of Patwar Circle Khaneol Bagra. In fact, both Patwar Circles, i.e., Sainjli and Khaneol Bagra fall in Gram Panchayat Shahout. However, when it comes to consideration of candidatures of candidates to the post of Teachers in Primary/Middle School of Gram Panchayat Shahout, candidates from both these Patwar Circles are eligible, whereas in case Lecturers are to be appointed in Government Senior Secondary School Khaneol Bagra, candidates hailing from Patwar Circle Sainjli become ineligible. Therefore, candidates hailing from Patwar Circle Sainjli are being discriminated. 5. As per the petitioners, while enacting the Policy (Annexure P-1) Patwar Circle Khaneol Bagra of Karsog was included and the area of Sainjli was left. In fact, area of Sainjli is more difficult/backward as compared to area of Khaneol Bagra. Petitioner No. 1 represented before the respondents on 17.10.2014, through a representation (Annexure P-11), but no decision was taken thereon. The petitioners contend that action of the respondents in enacting the Policy (Annexure P-1) is highly arbitrary, illegal and full of bias. Lastly, the petitioners pray that selection process for engaging lecturers in Hindi, English and History be annulled and alternatively petitioners be also awarded additional 10 marks in the selection process. 6. Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed reply to the writ petition, through respondent No. 2, wherein it is averred succinctly that the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to award 10 additional marks in the selection process for the post of Lecturers in the subject of Hindi, English and History to the candidates hailing from the area of Patwar Circle Sainjli and petitioners are also seeking quashing of the Policy (Annexure P-1). Simultaneously, the petitioners are seeking a direction to cancel the recruitment process for the post of Lecturers Hindi, English and History undertaken by Sub Divisional Officer, Karsog. The replying respondents have further averred that the Policy was enacted to belittle the hardships of the children of backward areas and to reduce the non-availability of teachers in these areas as also to improve their education. The replying respondents have further averred that the Policy was enacted to belittle the hardships of the children of backward areas and to reduce the non-availability of teachers in these areas as also to improve their education. As per the replying respondents, the condition of awarding of 10 marks, as aforesaid, is to accomplish the above objective. The petitioners hail from Gram Panchayat Shahout and as per the mandate of the Policy, in case the appointment is to be made to the post of Post Graduate Teacher, 10 marks have to be awarded to the candidates, who are permanent residents of Patwar Circle where the High/Senior Secondary School is located. It is further averred that in order to give impetus to the Right to Education and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Himachal Pradesh Act, 2009, the Policy, under scrutiny, was enacted and implemented on newly upgraded schools as well. It is also averred that awarding of 10 additional marks is within the mandate of the Policy and the sole object of this condition is to satisfy the above objectives. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are though entitled for 10 marks, being residents of the same Panchayat in respect of Primary School, but they are not entitled for proportionate marks out of 10 marks for being the residents of the same Panchayat for the High/Higher Secondary Schools. As the petitioners do not fall within the Patwar Circle where the Senior Secondary School is situated, they are debarred from awarding proportionate marks out of 10 marks for selection to Senior Secondary School. He has further argued that as per the policy, for getting 10 marks even for appointment to Senior Secondary School, a candidate should be the resident of that Panchayat. It is only because of demarcation of the Panchayat, the dispute has cropped up. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the policy is with respect to giving of 10 marks to the persons of the Patwar Circle only where the school is situated and so the petition is devoid of merits, as the petitioners’ do not hail from the concerned Patwar Circle where the Senior Secondary School is situated. Therefore, the petitioners have no case in their favour. 8. Therefore, the petitioners have no case in their favour. 8. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the petitioners have suffered injustice, the petition be allowed. 9. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General, I have gone through the record in detail. 10. The distribution of marks for evaluation by SMC during the selection process is contained in Annexure-II filed alongwith the Policy/procedure prescribed for appointment of the teachers by SMC to the education institutions of tribal/difficult areas, which is extended to other areas in the year 2014. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “Distribution of Marks* for evaluation of SMCs during course of Selection Process Sr.No. Qualification PGT TGT LT/ Shastri JBT 1. Matric - - 5 5 2. 10+2 - 5 5 5 3. Graduation/ Shastri 10 10 10 10 4. B.Ed for PGT/ TGT, JBT Certificate for JBT posts. 10 10 - 10 5. Post Graduation 10 5 10 - 6. TET - 10 10 10 7. Ph.D 10 8. Permanent resident of the concerned Panchayat where the Primacy/Middle School Located - 10* 10* 10* 8(b) Permanent resident of the concerned Patwar Circle where the High/ Senior Secondary School Located 10* - - - 9. Interview 10 10 10 10 60 60 60 60 The marks above will be awarded as proportion to the marks scored in the concerned examination. 10* marks will be given to the candidates belonging to the concerned Panchayat in respect of Primary and Middle Schools and concerned Patwar Circle in respect of High and Senior Secondary School where the institution is located.” 11. From the above, it is clear that the State has made a classification of the persons, who are residing in the Panchayat to be given preference for the Primary and Middle Schools by awarding them proportionate marks out of 10 marks and those who are not residing within the Panchayat where the Primary or Middle School is situated, definitely do not get any marks out of 10 marks for this purpose. The government has also made the policy for granting proportionate marks out of 10 marks for the persons to be appointed in the Senior Secondary Schools if the candidate belongs to the same Patwar Circle in which the Senior Secondary School is situated and the other candidates, who do not belong to the Patwar Circle where the Senior Secondary School is situated, are not entitled for getting proportionate marks out of 10 marks. Meaning thereby government want to give preference to the residents of the same Patwar Circle by making this classification. 12. Now the question arises whether this classification is reasonable or not. As the policy of the government is to appoint the teachers of the nearby area to educate the children of that area, this Court comes to the conclusion that the classification, as made by the respondents, is a reasonable classification and the procedure prescribed in it is as per law and within the confines of legitimacy and reasonable. There is another reason to hold the classification as reasonable classification, as it is emanating from the reply of the respondents that the posts in question are only temporary posts and in order to make the availability of teachers in remote area schools, till the regular hand joins, this policy is framed to recruit the local qualified persons. 13. In these circumstances, this Court finds that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. 14. In view of the above, the petition, as also pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.