Supreme Court of India
Mrs. Seema Kumari Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 23 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1693, 1997 AIR SCW 765, 1997 AIR SCW 1770, 1997 LAB. I. C. 873, (1997) 2 SCR 199 (SC), 1997 (1) UJ (SC) 670, 1997 (2) SCR 199, 1997 (1) UJ (SC) 367, 1997 UJ(SC) 1 367, 1997 UJ(SC) 1 670, (1997) 3 JT 62 (SC), 1998 ALL CJ 2 1066.1, 1998 ALL CJ 2 1066.2, 1997 (2) SCALE 277, 1997 (2) SERVLJ 89 SC, 1998 (9) SCC 108, (1998) 7 JT 465 (SC), 1998 (9) SCC 128, 1998 (7) JT 465, (1997) 115 PUN LR 279, 1997 REVLR 1 197, (1997) 1 ICC 598, (1997) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 438, (1997) 2 BANKCAS 79, (1997) 2 RECCIVR 51, (1997) 2 SCT 2, (1997) 1 SERVLR 651, (1998) 92 COMCAS 895, (1999) 81 FACLR 148, (1997) 1 SERVLR 32, (1997) 1 SUPREME 184, (1997) 1 ESC 633, (1999) 1 CURLR 21, (1999) 2 CALLT 2, (1997) 1 LJR 328, (1997) 3 SUPREME 105, (1997) 2 SCALE 277, (1997) 2 CURCC 62, (1997) 2 LANDLR 165, 1998 SCC (L&S) 469, (1999) 35 ALL LR 381
Author: K. Ramaswamy
Bench: K. Ramaswamy
PETITIONER: MRS. SEEMA KUMARI SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/10/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Shimla Bench made in O.A. No.619/95 and the review order, The admitted position is that the Director of Eduction issued a notice for Junior Basic Teachers' Training. The criteria for selection was 100 marks based on the percentage of marks based on the percentage of marks obtained in matric or equivalent examinations, 20 marks for candidates belonging rural areas and 10 marks for candidates belonging to backward panchayat were allotted. Similarly, 10 marks were allotted for candidates belonging to IRDP families. Though the appellant claimed to belong to IRDP family, the authorities have not considered her claim and consequently did not award 10 marks as required under the criteria. When the appellant filed the writ petition, the High Court dismissed the same holding that the appellant had not produced the certificate along with the application and, therefore, she is not entitled to the above status. When we directed the appellant to produce the record, she made the certificate a part of the record. Unfortunately it does not bear the date of issue; but we find that she has been given serial number of the IRDP family. In view of the fact that serial are ascribed to all the candidates in the order, we are of the view that her failure to furnish the certificate along with the application does not disentitle her to claim the status for consideration of 10 marks. Pursuant to the interim direction granted by this Court, the appellant has already appeared for the examinations conducted but her result has hot been announced.
Therefore, the appeals are allowed; the order of the Tribunal stands set aside. There shall be a direction to declare the result and her case for appointment will be considered in accordance with the rules, if she is selected. No costs.