Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mis Deep Mala D/O Shri Nanak vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 August, 2021
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No. 884 of 2019
Between:
MIS DEEP MALA D/O SHRI NANAK
CHAND, R/O VILLAGE & P.O.
BHANJAL, TEHSIL, AMB, DISTRICT
UNA, H.P.
....PETITIONER
(BY SH. SUBHASH SHARMA,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-1.
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER(CIVIL),
AMB, DISTRICT UNA, H.P. ACTING AS
CHAIRMAN, SLECTION COMMITTEE
FOR PAT, GOVT.PRIMARY SCHOOL,
BHANJAL, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT
UNA, H.P. 4.
4. SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI
JAGDISH RAM, R/O VILLAGE &
P.O.UPPER BHANJAL, TEHSIL
AMB,DISTRICT UNA, HP, PRESENTLY
PRIMARY ASSISTANT TEACHER
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SH. DESH RAJ THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
WITH MR. NARENDER THAKUR,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-
1 TO 3)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:49 :::CIS
2
(BY SH.AJAY SHARMA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE WITH SH AMIT JAMWAL,
ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
Whether approved for reporting?.
.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of respondent No.4, as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Bhanjal, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, petitioner herein approached the erstwhile H.P. Administrate Tribunal by way of Original Application No.3104 of 2007, which now stands transferred to this Court after abolishment of erstwhile H.P. Administrate Tribunal and stands registered as CWPOA No.884 of 2019, praying therein for following main relief:-
"(i). Impugned selection of respondent No.4 as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Bhanjal, Tehsil Amb, District Una, made on 21.9.2007 be quashed and set aside and the applicant be ordered to be appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher in the Government Primary School, Bhanjal, with all consequential benefits."
2. Certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that one post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Bhanjal, came to be notified and petitioner alongwith respondent No.4 applied for the same. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were issued interview letters by the Block Elementary ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:49 :::CIS 3 Officer, Mubarikpur, District Una, H.P., with a direction to appear in the interview on 21st September, 2007 at 10.00 AM, copy of the .
interview letter issued in favour of the petitioner stands annexed as Annexure P-1. Though, petitioner appeared alongwith the eligible candidates in the interview, but since she was not selected by the Interview Committee, Interview Committee after having found respondent No.4 eligible and fully qualified, recommended him to be appointed against the post in question. Copy of result sheet issued by respondent stands annexed as Annexure P-2, perusal whereof clearly reveals that respondent No.4 secured 64 marks in total, whereas petitioner secured 62 marks. Since, petitioner was not satisfied with the marks awarded by the Interview Committee while selecting respondent No.4, she filed a petition in the erstwhile H.P. Administrate Tribunal, praying therein for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
4. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that since elder brother of respondent No.4 was serving in Indian Army at the time of interview, Interview Committee could not have awarded him 10 marks on account of his having hailed from unemployed family. It is not in dispute that there was none in Government service in the family of the petitioner and as such, she like respondent No.4 was also awarded 10 marks. With a view to demonstrate that at the time of interview elder ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:49 :::CIS 4 brother of respondent No.4 was serving in Indian Army, petitioner has placed on record certain documents, perusal whereof, though reveals .
that elder brother of respondent No.4 was serving in Indian Army, but there is nothing suggestive of the fact that at the relevant time family of elder brother of respondent No.4 was residing with his father Sh.
Jagdish Ram. Careful perusal of Annexure P-3, reveals that marriage of Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Jagdish Ram was solemnized with Smt. Anita Devi on 18.11.2005.
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to para-3 of the aforesaid document, contended that since at the time of issuance of aforesaid document, no house tax was being paid by above named Vijay Kumar, it can be safely presumed that he was living with his father Sh. Jagdish Ram and as such, Interview Committee ought not have awarded 10 marks to respondent No.4 on account of his being member of unemployed family. However, having carefully perused the Annexure P-4 i.e. copy of Pariwar Register, this Court finds no force in the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner because in the aforesaid document name of Vijay Kumar and his wife have been not included , rather name of respondent No.4 alongwith his wife and son stands recorded in the Pariwar register.
Perusal of Annexure P-5 i.e. copy of Pariwar register suggests that family of Vijay Kumar i.e. brother of respondent No.4 stood entered in the record of the Panchayat separately. Learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to aforesaid document, argued that since ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:49 :::CIS 5 it has been categorically stated in the note appended below the aforesaid documents that there is no evidence with regard to .
separation of family available on the record, it can be safely presumed that respondent No.4 with a view to have undue benefit procured aforesaid documents, especially Annexure P-4, wherein his brother Vijay Kumar has been not shown to be member of the family. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has been not able to point out any material on record to support his aforesaid contention. While referring to Annexure A-5 annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.4, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that bare perusal of receipt placed on record, itself suggests that house tax, if any, qua the separate house owned and possessed by the brother of respondent No.4 was paid on 5.2.2008 meaning thereby, at the time of interview brother of the petitioner was not residing separately. While referring to Annexure A-5/2 annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.4, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that ration card came to be issued in favour of wife of brother of respondent No.4 just few months prior to issuance of interview letter and same was withdrawn after declaration of result, as is evident from certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned on 23.11.2008, Annexure P-6, perusal whereof reveals that vide resolution No.10, dated 23.9.2008 ration card in the name of wife of Vijay Kumar brother of respondent No.4 was cancelled and as such, it can be safely concluded that entry in the Pariwar register and issuance of separate ration card was camouflage. Though, ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:49 :::CIS 6 aforesaid documents Annexure A-5/2 and Annexure P-6 suggest that ration card in the name of Smt. Anita Devi wife of Vijay Kumar was .
issued few months prior to interview for the post in question and same was withdrawn after selection of respondent No.4, but fact remains that aforesaid documents were very much in existence when respondent No.4 alongwith petitioner applied for the post in question and when result of the interview was declared by the interview committee.
6. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that bare perusal of Annexure A-5/2 and Annexure P-6, reveal that respondent No.4 in connivance with official of the Gram Panchayat procured false document with regard to separate entry of the house of Vijay Kumar, brother of respondent No.4, but since aforesaid documents were issued by the competent authority and same were in existence at the time of interview, no fault, if any, can be said to have been committed by the Interview Committee while awarding 10 marks to respondent No.4 on account of his being member of unemployed family.
7. True, it is that perusal of certificate dated 23.11.2008, (Annexure P-6) issued by the Gram Panchayat Bhanjal upper, reveals that on 23.11.2008 family of Vijay Kumar was living with his parents i.e. Jagat Ram, but since respondent No.4 while placing on record documents has successfully proved on record that while he was interviewed for the post in question, his brother was living separately, ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:49 :::CIS 7 no fault, if any, can be found with the action of the Interview Committee inasmuch as awarding of 10 marks to respondent No.4 for .
his being member of unemployed family.
8. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as documents taken note hereinabove, this court finds no reason to interfere with the selection process carried out by the Interview Committee and accordingly selection of respondent No.4 is upheld.
9. The present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit alongwith pending applications, if any.
17th August, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma),
(shankar) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:49 :::CIS