DHARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance to an advertisement notice, borne in Annexure P-3, the writ petitioner submitted his documents, for the apposite advertised post. The afore advertisement, appertains to recruitment(s) therethrough, being made to the post of Junior T/Mate/Junior Helper (Sub-Station)/Junior Helper (Power House) (E). The imperative thereto educational qualifications, hence to be possessed by the aspirants concerned, become, borne in Annexure P-3. Moreover, in Annexure P-3, a, note exists qua, none of the aspirants, being amenable to face a personal interview, effect whereof shall become dwelt upon subsequently.

(2.) A perusal of Page Number 11, of, the Paper Book of Annexure P-3, discloses that, 60 marks were allocable to the aspirants concerned, for theirs, possessing matriculation certificate, and 25 marks were allocable to the aspirants concerned, hence possessing the technical qualification of ITI Electrician/Wireman, from the institution(s), recognized from the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In pursuance thereof, the respondents concerned, proceeded to award the afore marks to the writ petitioner. However, thereonwards, after the writ petitioner becoming selected, he was provisionally appointed to the advertised post. Nonetheless, his appointment become rescinded on the ground that, on the date of filing of the application form, by the writ petitioner, inasmuch as, 28.08.2018, he did not possess the technical qualification, of, ITI Electrician/Wireman, whereupon, marks allocated to him qua therewith becoming flawed.

(3.) Moreover, a perusal of the scribed instructions, placed on record, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, discloses, that since the writ petitioner, on 28.08.2018, did not posses, the prescribed technical qualification, hence, 25 marks were not allocable to him, under the afore head. However, the afore submission(s), would hold vigour, only upon the respondents, adhering to the note existing, in Annexure P-3, wherethrough, a complete forbiddance, become cast against the respondents, for theirs, rather asking the aspirants concerned, to, face, a, personal interview; (i) whereupon the afore note, upon, becoming adhered to, and also hence immediately subsequently, to, receipt of the application form(s), would facilitate, the process of scrutinizing the apposite documents, rather occurring thereat, (ii) whereupon, if thereat the writ petitioner was not holding the afore technical qualification, he would not hold any ground, to invalidate Annexure P-10. However, the afore process of scrutinizing the apposite documents, did not evidently occur in quick spontaneity, to, 28.08.2018, nor the respondents concerned adhered to the note existing in Annexure P-3, wherethrough, a complete forbiddance become(s) cast against the respondents, for theirs, hence asking the aspirants concerned, to, face, a, personal interview, before the Selection Committee concerned. Contrarily, as unfolded by Annexure P-5, hence drawn on 16.02.2019, the writ petitioner was asked to face, a, personal interview, on 25.02.2019, and since thereat he possessed the apposite technical qualification, and also when obviously, rather, thereat the selection process, did not terminate, (a) thereupon, it was legally insagacious, for the respondents to, merely, upon, an unadhered note, borne in Annexure P-3, and/or his not on 24.8.2018, possessing the desired technical educational qualification, and, wherethrough, 25 marks become allotted to him, under the head appertaining to the desired technical education, rather to subsequently rescind the afore apposite allocation(s), (b) conspicuously and reiteratedly, when they rather did not in quick spontaneity thereto, hence enter into the process of scrutinizing the apposite documents, rather, prolonged the process of scrutinizing the documents, upto, 16.02.2019. In aftermath, if the afore prolongation has occurred, its beneficial effects accrue, to, the petitioner.