JAGDISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THREE points have been raised before us. The first is that respondent No. 4 has been allotted 15 marks as against 10 marks provided for age. This contention has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned decision. It has been noticed that the marks provided for age group up to 18 to 27 were 15 marks. Since respondent No. 4 was covered under the said age group, was allotted 15 marks. Thus, the marks to be allotted were not 10 marks, as contended by the appellantwrit petitioner. We find no reason to interfere with that opinion of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) THE last contention of the appellantwrit petitioner is that the decision to appoint respondent No. 4 was already taken, which is evident from the circumstance that the appointment letter was issued on 4th September, 2012, whereas the selection process was concluded with the passing of resolution on 9th September, 2012. This argument was not raised before the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge has found that no case of mala fide exercise of power has been alleged in the petition. Since the decision of the selection committee is found to be unexceptionable of allotting higher marks to respondent No. 4, the clerical error committed in issuing the letter of appointment before passing of the resolution, cannot be the basis to set aside the appointment. For, the resolution upholds the decision of the selection committee.