VIKAS KOUSHAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the Press Note issued vide Annexure R -1, the applications were invited for filling up of 11 posts of Technical Assistants in Block Pragpur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra by 28th February, 2011. The respondent -State has issued a notification dated 7th April, 2008, whereby a detailed procedure has been given for filling up the posts of Technical Assistant. The minimum qualification prescribed vide Annexure P -1, is degree/diploma in Civil Engineering from the recognized institution. The respondent -State has also issued a notification dated 17th December, 2008, vide Annexure P -4, whereby relaxation has been given in technical qualification for filling up the posts of Technical Assistant. It is evident from the perusal of Annexure P -4, dated 17th December, 2008 that in case the candidates are not available with prescribed technical qualification of degree/diploma in Civil Engineering, the selection could be made from candidates having qualification of Draftsman/Surveyor (Civil), for which permission has been granted vide letter dated 14.11.2008. It has been further provided therein that in case the candidate with this qualification is also not available, then the candidates possessing Architect degree could be appointed as Technical Assistants. Petitioner submitted his application on 24.02.2011 for considering his candidature for the post of Technical Assistant. He was possessing three years diploma in Civil Engineering. Petitioner was interviewed by a duly constituted selection committee under the Chairmanship of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehra on 11.05.2011. Petitioner has secured 50.29 marks in the interview and respondent No. 4 has secured 56.55 marks. Respondent No. 4 is lowest in the merit list as per notice placed at page No. - 38 of the paper -book.

(2.) MS . Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No. 4 could not be considered for appointment by relaxing his educational qualification, since the petitioner with minimum qualification prescribed as per notification dated 7th April, 2008 was available.

(3.) MR . Ashwani K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has vehemently argued that his client was possessing even the minimum educational qualification, i.e., diploma in Civil Engineering as per notification dated 7th April, 2008. He has referred to Annexures R -D and R -G, respectively. He then argued that the final result of Technician Membership Examination (T. Engg.) (Equivalent to Diploma) was published on 28th February, 2011.