SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) ADMIT . As short question is involved, hearing is proceeded forthwith by consent. Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice for final disposal.

(3.) AFTER the selection process had commenced, the Gram Panchayat made query with the Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Himachal Pradesh about the eligibility criteria and in particular of allotting marks to the candidates. In response to the said query, the Director informed the Gram Panchayat vide communication dated 17th February, 2011 that besides the marks to be allotted in the manner provided in the said communication, it will be open to the Gram Panchayat to conduct interview of the candidates and allot marks for that purpose to the concerned candidate depending upon the performance during the viva voce test. Consequent thereto, the Gram Panchayat initially allotted marks to the respective candidates in terms of the criteria specified in the communication dated 17th February, 2011. As per that criteria, the appellant secured 19.19 marks, whereas respondent No.5 admittedly secured only 15.25 marks. However, the Gram Panchayat, relying on the condition in clause (iii) specified in the notification dated 26th June, 1999, decided to allot five additional marks to respondent No.5 on the ground that he had working experience, whilst serving in the Gram Panchayat for almost 11 years as Panchayat Sahayak. As a result of allocation of this five additional marks to respondent No.5, the aggregate marks of respondent No.5 became 20.25 and being in excess of the marks secured by the appellant i.e. 19.19, respondent No.5 was preferred and appointed by the Gram Panchayat.