Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ranjeet Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 4 November, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 440 of 2011
Decided on : November 4, 2016
Ranjeet Singh ................Petitioner
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ..........Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.
of
For the respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate
General with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer,
for respondents No. 1 to 3.
rt Mr. Surender
respondent No.4.
Verma, Advocate, for
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral):
Petitioner being aggrieved with the selection of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Fara, Drang II, District Mandi, HP, approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 2847 of 2002, which was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No. 5236 of 2008.
This Court, vide judgment dated 29.7.2010, disposed of the petition, in the following terms:
"According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall feel satisfied in case respondent No.2 District Primary Education Officer (DPEO), Mandi reconsiders his case on the following three aspects:
(i) Whether the husband of respondent No.4 Smt. Sheela Devi, is a Government servant employed in H.P. Public Works Department?
(ii) Whether the family of respondent No.4 has donated the land for the construction of the school, wherein respondent No.4 is presently serving as a Water Carrier?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:30:29 :::HCHP 2
(iii) Whether the marks awarded to respondent No.4 under the aforesaid heads by the Selection Committee were correct?
2. The request made is not opposed and is genuine and would finally determine the matter. Therefore, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to .
respondent No.2(District Primary Education Officer, Mandi) after affording an opportunity hold enquiry and upon hearing both the parties shall pass appropriate orders based upon facts qua the above posers, within a period of two months from the production of certified copy of this order before him, by the petitioner."
of
2. Perusal of order dated 1.12.2010 (annexure P-9) suggests that in compliance to direction passed by this Court, in CWP(T) No. 5236/2008, Deputy Director of Elementary Education afforded rt opportunity of hearing on 29.7.2010 and parties also submitted documents in support of their respective claims. Since there was dispute with regard to revenue documents submitted by petitioner as well as respondent No.4, Deputy Director of Elementary Education requested Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Padhar to verify that on which Khasra number, GPS Fara was situated. It emerges from the record that aforesaid Tehsildar, vide his report, informed that GPS Fara has been constructed on Demarcated Protected Forest (DPF) land of Mohal Mulsu which is still not in the name of Education Department and land donated from joint Khata by Sh. Nag Singh (husband of respondent No.4) in Muhal Salana adjoining to DPF Mulsu. Deputy Director of Elementary Education after perusing record of Selection Committee comprising of SDO(Civil), Pradhan, Gram Panchayat and Block Elementary Education officer, came to the conclusion that respondent Sheela Devi has been rightly appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in GPS Fara, Education Block Drang-II at Padhar, since she ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:30:29 :::HCHP 3 scored 24 marks, whereas petitioner scored 22 marks during the interview. He further concluded that since no mark on account of 'non-employment' has been awarded to respondent No.4, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was .
wrongly awarded marks on account of 'non-employment. Deputy Director of Elementary Education, on the basis of report submitted by Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Padhar, also came to the conclusion that Shri Nag Singh, husband of respondent No.4 ha also donated land from of joint Khata in favour of school, which is being used as a playground adjoining to the school. Since this Court, vide judgment dated rt 29.7.2010 had directed the District Primary Education Officer (now Deputy Director of Elementary Education) to conduct fresh inquiry qua three posers/aspects highlighted in that judgment, Deputy Director of Elementary Education, in order dated 1.12.2010 has rightly dealt with all the three aspects, as reproduced above.
3. After carefully perusing the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Elementary Education, this Court is satisfied and convinced that order dated 1.12.2010 is strictly in consonance with judgment dated 29.7.2010, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 5236/2008.
4. At this stage, Mr. Jaswal stated that Deputy Director of Elementary Education while passing order dated 1.12.2010 has not taken into consideration the distance certificate, which was issued by another Panchayat i.e. Dalah. Aforesaid contention of Shri Jaswal deserves outright rejection since Deputy Director of Elementary Education was bound to answer only the queries raised in the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:30:29 :::HCHP 4 judgment dated 29.7.2010, as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 1.12.2010.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge November 4, 2016 (vikrant) of rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:30:29 :::HCHP