Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 451 (HP)

Parun Chandel v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-23

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- ?It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure P-1, dt July six two though ten, may kindly be set aside and the Respondent No. I may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of PTI in Government Middle School Marthu, Kotkhai, District Shimla (HP) as a PTA appointee, by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent Nos I & 3; Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of petitioner, in the interests of justice.? 2. Undisputed facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:- On the recommendation of the Parents Teacher Association, respondent No. 4 was appointed against the post of PTI in Government Middle School, Marthu, Kotkhai, District Shimla, on 10.09.2007. Petitioner had also unsuccessfully participated in the process for selection against the said post. The appointment of the private respondent was assailed by the present petitioner by way of filing a complaint before the Enquiry Committee which was constituted by the State vide notifications dated 19.04.2008 and 27.05.2008 (Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively). The Committee which inquired the matter pursuant to the complaint filed by the present petitioner concluded that petitioner deserved to be appointed and the appointment of respondent No. 4 was liable to be rejected. This conclusion was arrived at by the Enquiry Committee after re-evaluating the merit of the petitioner as also the private respondent as per annexure appended alongwith the notification dated 27.05.2008. 3. The decision of the Committee was assailed by the private respondent before the appellate authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, who vide decision dated 06.07.2010, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Enquiry Committee. Said Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the private respondent by returning the following findings: ?I have gone through the record as well as the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of the SDM, Theog and considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Said Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the private respondent by returning the following findings: ?I have gone through the record as well as the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of the SDM, Theog and considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. The perusal of recommendation made by the enquiry committee shows that the selection of the appellant was cancelled on the basis of merit list prepared as per norms fixed by the Govt. in the new notification but the perusal of the result sheet prepared at the time of interviews shows that the appellant stood on top of all the contesting candidates and he possessed all the basic requirements and qualifications for the selection of the post. Since the appointment of the appellant was made according to the norms fixed vide notification dated 29.6.2006 the criteria under new notification cannot be applied with retrospective effect. In view of above I find no reason to hold that the selection of appellant was made in contravention of the norms fixed for the purpose. Therefore, the appeal is allowed the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of the SDM, Theog vide its order dated 4.11.2008 are set-aside.? 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed present petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as pleadings placed on record by the parties. 6. There is a supplementary affidavit of Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, dated 07.09.2017 alongwith which the merit list of the petitioner and the private respondent as was arrived at by the selection committee which interviewed them on 05.09.2007 is appended. The contents of the same are quoted herein-below:- Interview information/Merit List in R/o PET Interview on dt. 5/9/2007 GMS Marathu, Teh. Kotkhai, Shimla, H.P. Interview information/Merit List in R/o PET Interview on dt. 5/9/2007 GMS Marathu, Teh. Kotkhai, Shimla, H.P. Sr. No Name of the candidat e Fathers name Address Academic Qualification from essential to Higher Viva-Voce Matric 10+ 2 BA /M A Qualification PT A Subj ect PTA Remarks 20% 10 % 5% 30% 10 % 10 % Pre sid ent 5% Spec ialist 5% Secr etary 5% Total 1 Surinder Bhardwaj Sh. Sant Ram Vill. Baghi Tehkki, Absent 2 Anil Kumar Sh. Mathu Ram Vill. Lashta Absent 3 Suraj Chauhan Sh. J.R. Chauh an Vill. Sant Ram Vill. Baghi Tehkki, Absent 2 Anil Kumar Sh. Mathu Ram Vill. Lashta Absent 3 Suraj Chauhan Sh. J.R. Chauh an Vill. Kotkhai 9.80 5.6 8 - 21.5 6 - - 5.0 4.5 5.0 51.54 4 Reena Sharma Sh. Krishn a Chauh an C/o GMS Golardal - - Absent 5 Amit Chauhan Sh. Prem Chauh an Vill Dhalli Kiari, Teh. Kotkhai 7.94 4.4 3 18.5 4 3.5 2.5 3.0 39.91 6 Manoj Kumar Sh. Roshan Lal Absent 7 Amit Chauhan Sh. Gian Singh Vill. & PO Purag Teh. Kotkhai 7.71 5.5 2 14.0 3 4.0 3.0 4.5 38.76 8 Karan Sh. Naraya n Dass Vill. Manjholi Panog 10.0 0 6.1 2 17.1 0 4.5 4.0 3.5 45.22 9 Sunil Kumar Sh. Gian Singh Vill. Jhanddi Korkha Absent 10 Vikram Verma Sh. Chet Ram Verma Vil. Dasbar, Kotkhai Absent 11 Amit Verma Sh. Shyam a Nand -do- 8.68 4.5 0 21.3 1 6.6 5 2.5 2.5 3.0 49.14 12 Varun Chauhan Sh. Rajinde r Chauh an Vill. Dhalli Kiari, 9.56 4.1 2 2.0 1 18.2 2 6.9 5 3.0 3.0 2.5 49.36 13 Anuj chauhan Sh. Pratap Chauh an Vill. Badi Kiari 9.28 5.8 6 - 15.9 7 4.0 3.5 3.5 42.11 14 Puran Chandel Sh. Jagdis h Chand el Vill Bailot, Kotkhai 9.00 4.0 7 2.4 1 22.2 5 3.0 3.5 3.0 47.23 7. A perusal of the same demonstrates that whereas petitioner Puran Chandel was awarded 47.23 marks, respondent No. 4 was awarded 51.54 marks by the committee. The criteria which was so adopted by the selection committee when the interviews were conducted on 05.09.2007 is not the subject matter of dispute in the present petition. Be that as it may, it is a matter of record and not disputed during the course of arguments that when the appointment of the private respondent was assailed by the petitioner before a Committee so constituted vide notification dated 27.05.2008, said committee simply re-assessed the merit of the petitioner and private respondent on the basis of the criteria so appended with the said notification and concluded that petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No. 4. 8. Learned Appellate Authority, while setting aside the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee held that as the appointment of the appellant was made according to the norms fixed vide notification dated 29.6.2006, the criteria under new notification could not have been applied with retrospective effect. 8. Learned Appellate Authority, while setting aside the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee held that as the appointment of the appellant was made according to the norms fixed vide notification dated 29.6.2006, the criteria under new notification could not have been applied with retrospective effect. There is merit in the findings so returned by the learned Appellate Authority. This is for the reason that it is not in dispute that the appointment of the private respondent was made as per norms fixed vide notification dated 29.6.2006. Enquiry Committee did not conclude that the appointment of respondent No. 4 was in violation of the norms fixed vide notification dated 29.6.2006, nor during the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner could demonstrate that appointment of respondent No. 4 was in violation of the norms so prescribed under notification dated 29.6.2006. In this view of the matter, when the petitioner had participated in a process so initiated as per the norms fixed vide notification dated 29.6.2006, on his Complaint the appointment of respondent No. 4 could not have been set aside without returning the finding that the said appointment was in violation of norms fixed vide notification dated 29.6.2006. The Enquiry Committee erred in not appreciating this very important aspect of the matter. The Enquiry Committee could not have had recommended the appointment of the petitioner without first holding that either the earlier norms were unreasonable or that appointment of respondent No. 4 was made in violation of the said norms. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order so passed by the appellate authority which is under challenge before this Court. 9. Accordingly, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.