RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh on 31/8/2016, requested all the Employment Officers of District Kinnaur namely Pooh, Kalpa and Nichar to sponsor names of eligible candidate for the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) including C&V category. Employment exchanges named herein above sponsored names of six candidates of Scheduled Tribe category. Besides issuing call letters to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, a Press Note was published by Deputy Director Elementary Education, Kinnaur through DPRO District Kinnaur. Pursuant to said Press Note, petitioner, who is a resident of District Bilaspur, also applied for the post in question. Though the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste IRDP category candidate was permitted to appear in counseling process, but he was not considered for the post of PEt under SC/IRDP category on the ground that he does not belong to local Scheduled Tribe area of Kinnaur. Though the petitioner was the only candidate in the category of SC/IRDP category and had secured 48.58 marks but yet he was not selected against the post in question. Petitioner applied for information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and vide communication dtd. 3/3/2020 (Annexure P-1/A) placed alongwith the rejoinder, he was informed that since he is not a resident of District Kinnaur, he is not entitled to be given appointment in tribal area i.e. Kinnaur in terms instructions dtd. 16/8/2004 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby reservation is provided for posts of Class-III and IV in District cadre posts in Scheduled Tribe areas. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following substantive relief:

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that the facts as have been noted herein above, are not disputed rather same stand duly admitted. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the only available candidate in the category of SC/IRDP and had participated in interview in which he was awarded 48.58 marks. Since the petitioner was only available candidate against one post of PET under SC/IRDP category, which is still lying vacant, he was to be offered appointment but, interestingly, he was denied appointment on the ground that he does not belong to Kinnaur District and in terms of Notification dtd. 16/8/2004, only the persons belonging to District Kinnaur could be appointed against Class III and IV posts in District Kinnaur.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though careful perusal of instructions dtd. 16/8/2004 nowhere suggests that all the posts in Class-III and Class- IV category are to be filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to District Kinnaur, but even otherwise if the aforesaid instructions are permitted to sustain, it would amount to 100% reservation in the posts, which is otherwise impermissible.