CHATTER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned order of selection and appointment whereby the respondent department has selected and appointed respondent No. 7 and issuing directions to the respondents to select and appoint the applicant against the post of Vidya Upasak on the basis of merit, with all consequential benefits, and also for quashing the H.P. Gram Vidya Upasak Yojana -2001 to the extent to allocates marks for ST/Handicapped person as it will bring about undue un -equilibrium in recruitment as there will be 100% induction of this person belonging to the categories of SC/handicapped. He is aggrieved by the impugned order of selection of the respondent No. 7 not being eligible on the date of submission of application and despite his appointment being held cancelled by the respondent, S.D.M. and B.P.E.O. the Pradhan is going to issue appointment letter arbitrary and illegally.

(2.) The facts to be noticed are that he as well as respondent No. 7 have applied far the Vidya Upasak in Govt. Primary School Khajuar, under the primary Education Officer, Sataum and under Gram panchayat Kamraon. The applicant also belongs to the same Gram Panchayat, June 20, 2002 was the last date for submission of application alongwith the copies of documents viz -a -viz educational qualifications certificates duly issued by the competent authorities. The respondent No. 7 was given marks for B.A., wrongly as he did not posses this qualification on the date of submission of application as per the directions contained in the letter calling for applications dated June 7, 2002 (Anneuxre -A -1 and A -2), This applicant made an application to the Principal, S.G.G.S. Govt. College on august 6, 2002 (Annexure A/3 as to when the certificates reached in College with regard to the B.A. and it was informed that the certificates reached on June 22, 2002 and as the last date for submission of application alongwith documents was June 20, 2002 as such the respondents No. 7 could not have annexed the certificate on June 20, 2002. However, he by manipulating record submitted his certificate on a later date and thus played fraud with every one. It is further stated that when this fact was brought to the notice of SDM and B.P.O. they promptly issued letters to the Pradhan to cancel appointment of respondent No. 7 on August 5, 2002 (Annexure -A/4) and August 8. 2002 (Annexure -A/5) and appoint the next candidates, i.e. the applicant.

(3.) The applicant alleges that the Pradhan is adamant to issue appointment letter to respondent No. 7 being his party man in ignorance of the directions of the SDM and B.P.O.