Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1107 (HP)

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of H. P.

2017-09-21

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. Respondent No. 3 proceeded, to, display a notice on its notice board, where-under applications were invited from all interested persons, for filling up posts of Water Guard (Jal Rakshak). The apposite notice held a communication, of, all aspirants concerned submitting their applications on or before 23.03.2012, in the office of respondent No. 3 besides theirs remaining available on 23.03.2012 in the office of respondent No. 3. The petitioner herein also applied for the said posts and his application was purportedly accompanied by all the requisite qualification certificates. The duly constituted interviewing committee, as apparent, from a perusal of Annexure P-12, proceeded to assign the highest marks to one Som Dutt, respondent No. 6 herein and also proceeded to recommend him for appointment to the advertised post. The petitioner is aggrieved by the duly constituted committee concerned ignoring his candidature rather its proceeding to recommend, one, Som Dutt for appointment to the advertised post. 2. A thorough traversing of the averments comprised in the writ petition, unveil of non occurrence of any echoings therein vis-a-vis ascriptions of any mala-fides vis-a-vis any of the members of the duly constituted committee, which proceeded to interview the aspirants concerned nor any specific mala-fides anchored upon theirs being related to respondent No. 6, is enunciated in the writ petition. Tritely also none of the members of the duly constituted committee stand arrayed as parties in the array of respondents, non arraying's whereof also does spur an inference of the petitioner raising surmisal and illusory ascriptions vis-avis each of them qua theirs awarding in-discriminate marks vis-a-vis respondent No. 6. Bald averments in respect of indiscriminate marks being meted by members of the selection committee vis-a-vis respondent No. 6, averments whereof obviously are evidently unsupported by any tangible evidence, hence, are rendered bereft of any sustenance. Also any acceptance of any bald averments made in the petition, would result in this Court in sagaciously proceeding, to, without tangible evidence on record also without hearing the members of the selection committee concerned hence proceeding them to condemn them unheard. The respondents concerned meted replies to the writ petition, wherein they explicated the reasons which prevailed upon the interviewing committee, for assigning the highest marks to respondent No. 6. A perusal of the replies, unveil, of respondent No. 6 holding in the matriculation examination, marks higher than the petitioner. The respondents concerned meted replies to the writ petition, wherein they explicated the reasons which prevailed upon the interviewing committee, for assigning the highest marks to respondent No. 6. A perusal of the replies, unveil, of respondent No. 6 holding in the matriculation examination, marks higher than the petitioner. Also, on a reading of replies furnished by the respondents concerned, it is evident, of, the petitioner only appending matriculation certificates with his application, whereas, his not appending therewith, any experience certificates or BPL certificates. Even, the BPL certificate, as tendered by the petitioner, bespeaks, of, its, only after the date of selection hence standing issued by the competent authority, thereupon, it being of no worth vis-a-vis the BPL certificate, of, respondent No. 6, given his appending it with his application. Consequently, with respondent No. 6 possessing in the apt matriculation examination, marks higher than the petitioner also his possessing the BPL certificate, thereupon, rendered him a more suitable befitting candidate than the petitioner. Also when the marks awarded by the members of the selection committee are in consonance with all the aforesaid, thereupon, it can not be held that there was any in discriminatoriness on part of the members of the interviewing committee, in awarding the highest marks to respondent No. 6 nor it can be concluded that the members of the interviewing committee in awarding lesser marks to the petitioner, theirs, arbitrarily meeting them qua him. 3. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on anvil of Annexure P-12, submits that amongst the members of the selection committee, there being no expert and with the members of the selection committee concerned, holding, no technical professional knowledge in respect of the aspirants concerned possessing the requisite technical skills, for theirs proficiently performing the skilled tasks of water guard (Jal Rakshak), concomitantly, also rendered them ill equipped to select a suitable candidate. However, the aforesaid submission, cannot, be accepted. A perusal of the material on records reveals that vide Annexure R-I, the government constituted a committee comprising of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), as its Chairman, Assistant Engineer of IPH Sub Division concerned and the Panchayat President concerned as members thereof, for theirs conducting interviews of the aspirants. However, the aforesaid submission, cannot, be accepted. A perusal of the material on records reveals that vide Annexure R-I, the government constituted a committee comprising of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), as its Chairman, Assistant Engineer of IPH Sub Division concerned and the Panchayat President concerned as members thereof, for theirs conducting interviews of the aspirants. However, later on vide letter of 15.03.2012, a, validly reconstituted Committee comprising of the Assistant Engineer concerned, as its Chairman, Panchayat President concerned and Junior Engineer (IPH) of the section concerned, as members thereof, proceeded to interview the aspirants concerned on 12.04.2012. A perusal of Annexure R-V reveals, of, all the aspirants being interviewed by a validly constituted interviewing committee consisting, of, the Assistant Engineer, I&PH, Sub-Division Hamirpur as Chairman, Junior Engineer, I&PH, Chowki and President, G.P. Tibbi, as members thereof, hence, it can be safely concluded that the members of the interviewing committee being possessed with sound technical professional knowledge, for theirs adjudging the proficiencies/capabilities of all the aspirants, both in respect of their skills also in respect of theirs proficiently performing the skilled tasks of water guard. 4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.