RAJESH THAKUR Vs. H.P. VIDHAN SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Process for filling up five posts of Clerks was initiated as per advertisement dated 7.1.2011. Last date of receipt of applications was 27.1.2011. Petitioners and respondents No. 7 to 9 participated in the selection process. 270 candidates applied for these posts and 230 candidates were found eligible. Written test was conducted on 23.3.2011. Minimum qualifying marks were 50% of the total marks. The result was declared on 11.7.2011. The Committee was constituted for the purpose of recruitment on 14.7.2011. Typing test was held on 22.7.2011 alongwith interview. Respondents No. 7 to 9 have qualified the typing test. Initially, petitioner No. 1 was declared to have qualified the typing test but later on as per supplementary affidavit placed at page 84 of the paper book, it transpired that since petitioner No. 1 has secured 28.4 marks, he has wrongly been shown as qualified. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 have not qualified the typing test. Petitioner No. 1 secured 78 marks, petitioner No. 2 secured 84 marks and petitioner No. 3 secured 73 marks whereas respondent No. 7 secured 96 marks, respondent No. 8 secured 85 marks and respondent No. 9 secured 81 marks. In sequel to the result compilation as per Annexure P-9, respondents No. 7 and 8 were issued appointment letters on 30.8.2011. Respondent No. 9 was issued an appointment letter on 27.9.2011. Mr. P.D. Nanda has strenuously argued that the selection process is vitiated due to favouritism and nepotism. According to him, respondent No. 7 is daughter of respondent No. 5, respondent No. 8 is nephew of the wife of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 9 is son of sister-in-law of respondent No. 4. He then argued that respondents No. 7 to 9 have been indiscriminately given higher marks in the interview to favour them. He also argued that there is possibility of answer-sheets being replaced. He further contended that neither any written test nor typing test could be conducted by the respondents No. 1 to 4. He lastly contended that this Court may get the suitability of the petitioners assessed by constituting a fresh Selection Committee.

(2.) Mr. Ashok Sharma and Mr. Shrawan Dogra have supported the selection of respondents No. 7 to 9. Mr. Ashok Sharma has argued that Vidhan Sabha has maintained absolute transparency in the selection process and the allegations made by the petitioners are not borne out from the records. He then argued that since the Speaker accompanied by the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha was going on a foreign tour to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, Under Secretary was authorized to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates. He lastly contended that since the petitioners have not qualified the typing test, they are precluded from assailing the selection process. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, in addition, has argued that petitioners have undertaken the selection process and when they were not selected, they have assailed the appointments of respondents No. 7 to 9 to the post of Clerks.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and the records produced by the Vidhan Sabha carefully.