Himachal Pradesh High Court
__________________________________________________________ vs State Of Hp & Ors on 5 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWPOA No.4771 of 2019
Decided on: 5th July, 2024
__________________________________________________________
Lakesh Dutt ...Petitioner
.
Versus
State of HP & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner:
For respondents:
r to Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate.
Ms. Swati Draik Deputy Advocate
General for No.1 to 4 & 6.
None for respondent No.5 though
represented by Mr. L.N. Sharma,
Advocate.
Mr. Pankaj Sawant, Advocate for
No.7.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following relief :-
"(i) The appointment of respondent No.7 vide Annexure A-6, whereby respondent No.3 declared respondent No.7 as selected for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher to Govt. Primary School, Dhar Tikkari, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, and may 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:29:57 :::CIS -2-
kindly be held wrong, illegal and arbitrary and may kindly be set aside and quashed.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to re- determine the merit of the candidates including the applicant and respondent No.7 who appeared for interview of post of Primary Assistant Teacher, .
Govt. Primary School, Dhar Tikkari, for allotting proper marks in terms of scheme and to offer appointment to the meritorious candidate, i.e. the applicant."
2. The case set up by the petitioner before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal [now transferred to this Court after abolishing of the Tribunal], is that the State Government notified the Primary Assistant Teacher's Scheme.
Pursuant to this, the respondents notified the filling up of vacancies in various schools on 18.07.2007, including one post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Dhar Tikkari, which was intended to be filled up from unreserved category. The case of the petitioner is that, being eligible for the aforesaid post, he submitted his application to the respondent No.4 on 21.08.2007 i.e. much before the extended date of receipt of applications which was 10.09.2007. The interview for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher was held on 06.10.2007 and the result were declared by respondent No.3 on 09.10.2007, wherein the respondent ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:29:57 :::CIS -3- No.7, Guman Singh was appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher, in Government Primary School, Dhar Tikkari, under Block Elementary Education Officer, Sarahan, Tehsil .
Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P.
3. The petitioner has assailed the selection of respondent No.7, primarily on two grounds, firstly, that the petitioner has passed the Prabhakar Degree, therefore, he ought to have been given preference and awarded extra marks for the aforesaid course and secondly, the marks in personal interview have been awarded arbitrarily.
4. Pursuant to filing of the Original Application, notice was issued to the respondents on 05.11.2007, directing the respondents, to file the reply in the matter.
5. The Director of Elementary Education-respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 10.09.2008. A perusal of the reply affidavit reveals that the petitioner Lakesh Dutt, had secured 56.12 marks, whereas respondent No.7 has been awarded 56.62 marks. The stand of the State Authorities is that respondent No.7 is more meritorious in terms of the ingredients of the Primary Assistant Teachers Scheme issued by the State Government, which is borne out from Annexure ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:29:57 :::CIS -4- A-4, which is on record.
6. The first contention, of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisht, that the State Authorities .
or the Selection Committee had not awarded marks for Prabhakar Degree, is without any substance for the reason, that a perusal of Clause 4 of Primary Assistant Teachers Scheme reveals that five marks were prescribed under Clause 4 for Certificate/Diploma of at least one year's duration 'in any teacher training course' from a recognized Board/University in JBT, B.Ed., C&V [except music and craft].
This contention is without substance, for the reason, that the degree of Prabhakar [Annexure P-2, colly], passed by the petitioner, is an "Education qualification"
and is "not a Certificate/Diploma in any teacher training course", as contemplated under the scheme Annexure A-4.
Awarding marks to the petitioner, for Prabhakar Degree, de-
hors the Scheme [Annexure A-4], shall certainly amount to tinkering with the Scheme, is impermissible.
Normally, the teacher's training courses, in the State of Himachal Pradesh are Certificate/Degree Courses ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:29:57 :::CIS -5- in JBT, B.Ed, Nursing Teachers Training Course or Elementary Education Teachers Training. A teachers training undergone by a person, while being enrolled as a student for .
passing an educational qualification cannot be treated as a teachers training course. Even an in-course teachers training cannot be equated with the teachers training courses recognized by the Board/University, under the Primary Assistant Teachers Scheme norms.
Moreover, the next contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves to be given preference for his Prabhakar Degree is misconceived, when the preference clause in the Scheme was to be involved or applied in case, the merit or other parameters of two or more candidates was equal in all respects whereas in the present case, the petitioner has lower merit vis-à-vis the respondent No.7, and therefore, the petitioner is neither eligible nor entitled for preferential marks, for Prabhakar qualification.
Granting preference for Prabhakar qualification will defeat the object, rationale and mandate of Clause 4 of the Scheme [Annexure A-4] and therefore, the contention of the petitioner, is without, any substance.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:29:57 :::CIS -6-
6(i) The second contention of Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate that the petitioner has been awarded 7 marks in interview vis-à-vis 12 marks awarded to Respondent .
No.7 out of 15 marks prescribed for personal interview as per the Scheme, Annexure A-4. The petitioner has not assailed the prescription of 15 marks, under Clause 7 of the Scheme Annexure A-4. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that award of less marks in interview to the petitioner vis-à-vis the higher marks respondent No.7, was arbitrary when, the petitioner has r awarded to neither pleaded nor impleaded the members of selection committee/persons against whom the mala fide in awarding marks was sought to be recorded by the petitioner, is subject to the performance of respective candidates before the Selection Committee. Moreover, once there is nothing on record to show either arbitrariness or mala fides and therefore, the contention of the petitioner is based on conjectures and surmises, is devoid of any merit
7. In addition to the above, this Court is of the considered view that once the selection for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:29:57 :::CIS -7- Dhar Tikkari, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, [H.P.] has been made by a duly constituted selection committee, then, this Court, is not inclined to interfere in the matter, .
when the selection made by a duly constituted committee cannot be interfered with, in absence of any arbitrariness or mala fides, which are absent, in the instant case.
8. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds, no reason, to interfere accordingly, upheld.
r to in the selection of respondent No.7, and the same, is In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is dismissed and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 5, 2024 (Chiranjeev) ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:29:57 :::CIS