Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of H.P And Others on 10 March, 2021
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 175 of 2019
.
Reserved on: 9.3.2021
Decided on : 10.03.2021
Rajesh Kumar Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P and others Respondents.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Yes.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: r Mr. P.P Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Mr. Narender
Guleria, and Mr. Hemant Vaid, Addl.
A.Gs with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Dy.A.G
for respondents No. 2.
Mr. M.L Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge
The writ petitioner claims, the, making, of, a
mandamus upon the respondents, for quashing the selection,
and, consequent therewith appointment, of, co-respondent
No.3, as, Computer Operator, Development Block, Nankhari,
District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
2. The gravamen of the afore striving, becomes
embedded, in the selection committee, proceeding to, on, the
parameter of experience, hence award 15 marks to co-
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
...2...
respondent No.3. The apposite abstract of the score-sheet
.
making the afore reflections is appended with the instant writ
petition, as, Annexure P-11. The validity of awarding of marks
qua therewith, by the selection committee, is contended to be
fallacious, as co-respondent No.3 did not, in tandem with the
maximum, of, 15 marks allocable, to her, under the parameter of
experience, render or perform duties hence relevant to the
advertised posts, in any Panchayati Raj institution/ Government
Office/undertaking/institution/agency.
3. The afore made contention, does acquire merit, as,
the performance(s) by the aspirants concerned, of duties in,
the, capacity of computer operator, prior to the apposite
selection and consequent therewith appointment being made,
enjoined imperative performance(s) thereof, in any Panchayati
Raj institution/ Government Office/undertaking/institution/agency, (i)
and, obviously the experience certificate possessed by co-
respondent No.3, and, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-12,
is not issued, in consonance with the afore stated apposite
therewith norm(s), encapsulated in norms, embodied in
Annexure P-10. The sequel thereof is that the claim made in the
writ petition becomes amenable for acceptance, and, the
...3...
awarding of 15 marks, by the selection committee concerned,
.
of the respondents, under, the norm "experience", is, annulled.
4. Be that as it may, since it is averred, on affidavit, by
co-respondent No.3, that, in the relevant year, in as much as
2008, and, whereat the relevant recruitment hence began,
rather thereat (s) with the petitioner rendering work, as, a
computer Teacher in Government School, Nankhari, District
Shimla, H.P, and, his drawing per mensem salary of Rs.2760/-,
thereupon, the awarding of 5 marks, to him, under BPL norm,
hence by the selection committee, as unfolded by score sheet,
Annexure P-11, becomes also construable to be legally fallible,
unless it, is demonstrated by cogent evidence, that despite,
drawing(s) of the afore per mensem salary by the petitioner, in
the year 2008, whereat, the, recruitment process began, he
under, the rules appertaining to the issuance of BPL certificate,
did not, qualify to fall within the realm of BPL category.
5. In summa, the allotment of 15 marks to co-
respondent No.3 under the parameter of experience, is,
annulled and set aside, and, with the aforemade observations,
vis-a-vis, the allotment of marks to the petitioner, under, the
head "BPL norm", be also reconsidered, and, the respondent
...4...
concerned is directed to thereafter prepare and redraw, the,
.
Seniority list, appertaining to the selection and consequent
therewith appointment, as, made to the advertised post of
Computer Operator(s).
In view of the above, the present petition
stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.
r ( Sureshwar Thakur),
Judge.
10th March, 2021
(priti)
