ANITA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was selected and appointed as Lecturer (Economics) in Government Senior Secondary School, Kothi -Gehri by the duly constituted committee of the Parents Teachers Association, on 15.9.2006. The appointment of the petitioner, as lecturer (Economics) was challenged by respondent No. 4, who took to file a complaint before the inquiry committee, constituted by the Government, for the said purpose. He alleged, therein, that merit was ignored at the time of selection of the petitioner, by the PTA Committee, of the said school. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner herein were terminated on the basis of report submitted by the inquiry committee, pursuant to the government notification No. DEM -A -Kha (7)3/2006, dated 27.5.2008. The petitioner, herein, then filed an appeal against the findings of the inquiry committee before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, which was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the report of the inquiry committee, as well, as, by the orders rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, in appeal, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1226 of 2009 before this Court. Consequently, this Court passed the following directions in the said petition along with other analogous petitions on 18.3.2010: -

(2.) IN consequence to the orders rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1226 of 2009, on 18.3.2010, the inquiry committee/competent authority, entered upon the inquiry and on completion of inquiry proceedings, recorded its conclusions, which are comprised in Annexure P -4. Annexure P -4, manifests the fact that judicial dictum, mandates, that an objective basis should be fulcrum for making appointments to the PTA. However, in case, rational and objective criteria, is, adopted and followed by the committee, such adoption would forestall any inquiry, into appointments made by the PTA. Both the petitioner and the complainant, were summoned by the Officers, who rendered the decision, comprised in Annexure P -4. A comparative chart existing at internal Page -4 of Annexure P -4, underscores the factum of the marks awarded/obtained by the contenders. Its perusal divulges that the petitioner was awarded five marks under the relevant/apposite criteria, of hers belonging to the local Panchayat. However, marks earned/awarded to the petitioner, on the score of her being a member of local Panchayat, was the core controversy inter se the petitioner and the complainant (respondent No. 4). Annexure P -4, records the conclusion that the awarding of 5 marks to the petitioner, on, the score of hers being a local resident was erroneous, as well as flawed, in as much, as, copy of the Parivar Register, Gram Panchayat, Janed, reveals her to be a resident of Gram Panchayat, Janed and not of Gram Panchayat, Koti Gehri, within whose domain and jurisdiction, the school, where the petitioner was appointed, is located. Consequently, she being not a local resident of the Panchayat concerned, marks on the score of her being a local resident could not have been awarded to her.

(3.) FURTHER more, it is also imperative to conclude that the holding of land, even within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri, is, neither a relevant nor a germane parameter for determining "residence" of the aspirant. The parameter, of, residence, envisaged, as, a criteria for awarding of marks to aspirant/candidate necessitates its being anvilled upon, rather the actual place of living or habitation of an aspirant or a candidate, even if, it be other than the one, where the land is being held by the aspirant or the candidate. Keeping in mind, the above parameter, it is held that the petitioner has neither established by cogent evidence comprised in her either holding a ration card issued by the Gram Panchayat, where the school is situated, hence, portraying the fact of her living or residing within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat concerned, nor has adduced any abstract of Parivar Register maintained by the Gram Panchayat, where the school is situated, for portraying and unearthing the fact of her being a member of the Panchayat or residing in that Panchayat. Consequently, the findings as recorded by the Enquiry Committee as also by the Deputy Commissioner, are affirmed and do not merit interference. As a sequel displaying of jamabandi qua land, if any, held by the petitioner in the Gram Panchayat, Kothi Gehri is of no significance, hence, was tenably ignored in both the Annexures, P -4 and P -13.