Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lal Chand vs State Of H.P on 29 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2024:HHC:2993 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 560 of 2019
.
Date of Decision 29th May, 2024.
________________________________________________________
Lal Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ....Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?
_______________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional
Advocate General for
respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate
vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate for
respondent No.4.
Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma,
Advocate for respondent No.5.
_______________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court against the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) in Government Primary School, Kalwari, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu by the Selection Committee consisting of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Block Primary ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2024 20:31:38 :::CIS CWPOA No. 560 of 2019 ...2...
Education Officer, Centre Head Teacher and Pradhan of respondent No.4 i.e. Gram Panchayat vide interview conducted .
on 6th October, 2007.
2 Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 Veena Devi daughter of Shri Tulsu Ram was family member of Fattu Ram son of Shri Sihanu Ram as evident from the copy of Family Register placed on record (Annexure A-4). Further that Fattu Ram, at the relevant point of time, was in service whereas the Selection Committee awarded 10 marks to respondent No.5 on the ground that no person from her family was in service and, therefore, it has been submitted that after deleting 10 marks awarded to respondent No.5, petitioner shall have to be selected and appointed because petitioner is next in merit in the Selection List after respondent No.5.
3 Accordingly, prayer of petitioner is that selection of respondent No.5 as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Kalwari, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu may be quashed and set side and petitioner be ordered to be appointed against the said post with all consequential benefits.
4 In response to the petition, reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3/State stating therein that marks have been rightly awarded to respondent No.5 on the ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2024 20:31:38 :::CIS CWPOA No. 560 of 2019 ...3...
basis of non-employment certificate duly issued by Executive Magistrate, Banjar (Annexure R-5/10).
.
5 Separate reply has been filed by respondent No.5 wherein it has been stated that Fattu was not real brother of Tulsu (father of respondent No.5) because Fattu was son of Sihnu whereas Tulsu was son of Sagru Ram. However, Tulsu was suffering from mental ailment, and therefore, his wife and children were being looked after by Fattu despite the fact that he was not real brother of Tulsu. It has been further submitted that family of Fattu was altogether different from the family of Tulsu and to substantiate it, a Pedigree Table issued by concerned Revenue Officer has been placed on record (Annexure R-5/7). Copy of Certificate regarding mental condition of Tulsu Ram, issued by Gram Panchayat, has also been placed on record (Annexure R-5/9) to substantiate the plea taken in reply. Copy of non-employment certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Banjar in favour of respondent No.5 has also been placed on record (Annexure R-5/10) with reply.
6 It is the further stand of respondent No.5 that she has been married to one Chhavinder Singh and non-
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2024 20:31:38 :::CIS CWPOA No. 560 of 2019...4...
employment certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate in favour of Chhavinder Singh has also been placed on record.
.
7 Petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have placed on record different copies of Parivar Register which are not similar to each other. In Parivar Register, placed on record by petitioner (Annexure A-4), Fattu and Tulsu have been reflected as sons of Sihnu, whereas this fact has been rebutted by respondent No.5 by placing on record the Pedigree Table (Annexure R-5/7) as well as another copy of Family Register (Annexure R-5/8) indicating that Fattu Ram is son of Sihnu Ram and Tulsu is son of Sagru Ram.
8 Respondents No.1 to 3 are officials and Officers of Education Department. They have justified the grant of marks on the basis of non-employment certificate with submissions that the said certificate was considered as valid as it was issued by the Executive Magistrate Banjar and till date, the said certificate neither has been cancelled nor found to be forged or fake. There was no authority with the concerned Selection Committee to discard the certificate produced by respondent No.5.
9 The rejoinder(s) have been filed to reply(ies) filed by respondent No.5 as well as respondents No.1 to 3, however, ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2024 20:31:38 :::CIS CWPOA No. 560 of 2019 ...5...
nothing has been brought on record indicating that at any point of time, non-employment certificate produced by respondent .
No.5 was cancelled or found to be fake. There is disputed claim with respect to existence and entries of families of Tulsu and Fattu in Parivar Register as discussed supra. There is no conclusive unrebutted material on record to substantiate the plea of the petitioner.
10Non-employment certificate issued in favour of husband of respondent No.5 may not be relevant because admittedly, respondent No.5 was married to Chhavinder Singh after her selection as Primary Assistant Teacher.
11 Admittedly, till date no challenge has been laid to non-employment certificate issued by Executive Magistrate Banjar in favour of respondent No.5. The said certificate is valid till date.
12 It is also pertinent to record that neither Sub Divisional Magistrate being head of the Selection Committee nor the Executive Magistrate Banjar, who had issued the non-
employment certificate in favour of respondent No.5, have been arrayed as party. There is no challenge laid to validity of certificate in the prayer clause of petition.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2024 20:31:38 :::CIS CWPOA No. 560 of 2019...6...
13 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of .
the case, I do not find it a fit case to interfere with the selection of respondent No.5.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
( Vivek Singh Thakur )
May 29,2024(ms) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2024 20:31:38 :::CIS