Nikka Ram Garg vs State Of Himachal
2021 Latest Caselaw 3852 HP

                                1

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.




                                                           .

                ON THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
                            BEFORE





            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
               CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 781 of 2020
Between:-
SH. RAKESH KUMAR, S/O SH.




NIKKA RAM GARG, R/O VILLAGE
SEO,  P.O.    NASWAL,   TEHSIL
GHUMARWIN,            DISTRICT
BILASPUR, H.P.


                                                   ....PETITIONER
(BY SH. JEEVESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND


1.    STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH     THROUGH     ITS
PRINCIPAL        SECRETARY




(AYURVEDA) TO THE GOVT.
OF    HIMACAL      PRADESH,





SHIMLA-2.
2.         THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AYURVEDA,





H.P. GOVT., BLOCK NO. 26,
SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPTI,
SHIMLA-9, H.P.
3.   THE SECRETARY, H.P.
STAFF            SELECTION
COMMISSION,      HAMIRPUR,
H.P.
4.        JYOTI DEVI, AGED
ABOUT    35    YEARS,  W/O
CHAMAN LAL, RESIDENT OF




                                          ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:14 :::CIS
                                        2

VILLAGE & P.O. SAMOH,




                                                                     .
TEHSIL         JHANDUTTA,





DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.


                                                           ...RESPONDENTS





(SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH MR.
SUMESH RAJ & ADARSH SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERALS & MR. KAMAL KANT CHANDEL, DEPUTY
ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1 & 2.




SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3.
SH. NAVLESH VERMA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-4)
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

     __________________________________________________________

             This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:


                                    JUDGMENT

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,

prayed for the following reliefs:

"A. The respondent No. 3, Secretary H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, H.P. may kindly be

directed to consider the certificate Annexure P-5 in evaluation process/test and award one mark to the petitioner and further redraw the merit list accordingly."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition

are as under:-

Respondent No. 3, vide Advertisement dated 26.06.2018

.

advertised the posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacist on contract basis in respondent

No. 2-Department. A copy of the said Advertisement is appended with the

petition as Annexure P-1. According to the petitioner, as he was eligible to

apply for the post in issue, he did so. He participated in the written objective

type screening test held on 24.03.2019 and secured 41.50 marks out of 85

marks. Thereafter, he was called for the Evaluation Test on 16.08.2019. In

terms of Annexure P-1, there was a fixed criteria for allotting marks in the

Evaluation Process. Out of 15 marks, which were to be awarded under the

Evaluation Process, the petitioner was granted 5.26 marks. In terms of

Annexure P-2, i.e., a Press Note, issued by respondent No. 3-Commission,

the total marks secured by the petitioner were 46.76 out of 100 marks. The

last candidate, who has been selected under the General Category has

secured 47.32 marks.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have

denied him appointment wrongly as one mark for which he was entitled to in

terms of Advertisement Annexure A-1, for having training of at least 6

months duration related to the post applied for from a recognized

University/Institution, has been denied to him, though he was having the

requisite training from Patanjali Chikitsalaya, which is duly borne out from

.

Certificate, dated 09.04.2020, issued to the petitioner by the Patanjali

Chikitsalaya, Chandigarh (Annexure P-5). It is in this background that the

petition has been filed praying for the relief mentioned hereinabove.

4. The petition is resisted by the respondents, inter alia, on the

ground that the allotment of marks to the petitioner was strictly in

consonance with his performance and his academic qualifications etc. It is

further the stand of the respondent-Commission that as no certificate was

submitted by the petitioner from a recognized University or Institution,

demonstrating that he was possessing 6 months training, relatable to the post

applied for, from a recognized University/Institution, therefore, he was

rightly not granted any mark under this particular Head. It is further the

stand of respondent No. 3 that Annexure P-5 was never submitted by the

petitioner to the respondent-Commission. This is evident from the averments

contained in paragraphs No. 5 to 7 of the reply so filed by respondent No. 3

to the writ petition.

5. In this background, when the matter was list on 05.08.2021, the

following order was passed:

"The only grievance of the petitioner is that in

.

terms of the advertisement, one mark which the

petitioner was entitled to on account of the experience, has been arbitrarily denied to him while assessing his

candidature despite the fact that the copy of the certificate issued by the authorized signatory of the Patanjali Chikitsalaya, stood produced by the

petitioner, copy of which is appended herewith as Annexure P5.

In the reply, which has been filed to the

petition, the stand of respondent No.3, is to the effect that in terms of the record, the petitioner at the time of the evaluation of marks, did not submit any certificate

of training as alleged in para-7 of the petition.

In the considered view of the Court, before

any further observations is made by the Court, in this regard, it will be in the interest of justice, in case,

respondent No.3 is directed to produce the relevant record which was submitted by the petitioner

alongwith his application, because in case petitioner alleges that he produced the certificate and respondent denies it, then it becomes disputed question of fact which cannot not be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of constitution of India.

Accordingly, the matter is ordered to be listed

.

on 12.8.2021, on which date learned counsel for the

respondent No.3 shall produce the documents submitted by the petitioner before it."

6. In compliance thereof, the respondent-Commission has

produced the original of the documents alongwith Bio Data and Form, which

was filled in by the petitioner while applying for the post in issue. A perusal

of the same demonstrates that indeed Annexure P-5 was not made available

by the petitioner to respondent No. 3. The Sheet dealing with evaluation part

of 15 marks, which contains the signature of the petitioner also at Sr. No. -X,

refers to "training of at least 6 months duration related to the post applied for

from a recognized University/Institution", against which, under the Head

'Submitted/Not submitted', there is a cross, meaning thereby that the same

was not submitted and therefore, no mark was allotted to the petitioner for

the same. In this view of fact, as it is evident from the record produced by

the Commission that the training certificate was not submitted by the

petitioner to the respondent-Commission, no fault can attributed to the

respondent-Commission for not granting one mark to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of any merit, is

.

dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order

stands vacated.

                                                  (Ajay Mohan Goel)
                                                         Judge
August 12, 2021
     (bhupender)




                         r           to