SATISH KUMAR SANKHYAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this original application under Section 9 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking mainly the following reliefs: - (i) That the respondents No.2 may be directed to recommend the names of candidates for 8 number of posts on the basis of interview held on 4.12.1993 and the panel/waiting list, prepared on the basis of that interview as the panel is alive for one year, the posts of TGT (Science Medical). (ii) That the respondents may be restrained from filling up the 8 number of posts on the basis of requisition dated 29.2.993 and also on the basis of screening test to be held on 8.5.1994. (iii) That the respondents may be directed not to make selection of TGT Science. Medical Solely on the basis of 100% oral interview, further direction may be given to select the candidates on the basis of proper procedure and criteria laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India. (iv) That the respondents may be directed to take in to consideration the criteria of written test, experience, higher qualifications and other co curricular activities while making the selection for the posts of TGT Science Medical.

(2.) In brief the case of the applicant is that the applicant who was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher Science Medical on tenure basis at Government Middle School, Doomehar District Bilaspur and is continuing there as such since, December 1,1990. Subsequently, names of eligible candidates were called through requisition sent to various employment exchanges for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher Science Medical. Thereafter, screening test was conducted during February, 1990 by respondent No.2 i.e. H.P. Public Service Commission in which the applicant successfully qualified the same and appeared in personal interview. On the declaration of result the name of the applicant was not recommended for appointment and as many as 38 candidates were initially given appointment during May, 1990 and, thereafter, in September/October, 1990. Respondent No.1 again gave appointment to six more candidates from same panel as prepared by respondent No.2. However, the applicant was arbitrarily ignored inspite of best performance and screening test and personal/oral interview held subsequently. Respondent No.2 again conducted screening test on 15.10.1993 in which the applicant also appeared the qualified the same and appeared for personal/oral interview on 4.2.1993. However this time again respondent No.2 arbitrarily without following any procedure did not recommend and name of the applicant. Subsequently, eight posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (Science Medical) were further advertised and screening test was held on 8.5.1994 in which the applicant again appeared and was declared successful and also appeared in the interview held thereafter on 28.7.1994. Even this time his name was not recommended for appointment. The main grievance of the applicant is that the interview/oral test which was held by respondent No.2 and the recommendation was made on the basis of giving 1QP% weightage to the interview. The contention of the applicant is that the merit list should have been prepared on the basis of joint performance based on the screening test followed by interview rather than only interview conducted by respondent No.2. The applicant has mentioned in the original application that requisition for 8 posts was sent to H.P. Public Service Commission on the basis of requisition dated 29.12.1993 whereas these 8 posts should have been filled up on the basis of selection process for which interviews were held on 14.12.1993 and the panel/waiting list prepared on the basis of that interview was alive for a period of one year and as such there was no need for holding fresh screening test and interview for these 8 posts.

(3.) Reply was filed by respondent No.1, the claim of the applicant was disputed by respondent No.1 in the reply on the ground that this selection process was undertaken by expert body like the Public Service Commission who is the best judge to form the criteria for selection of candidates in accordance with set procedure and rules in this regard. It is further submitted in the reply that the applicant appeared in the entire selection process and thereafter, since his name was not recommended as so called best performance of the applicant does not if so facto entitle him to selection for appointment. The allegations of the applicant that the selection was made on extraneous consideration is malicious and baseless. It is further mentioned in the reply that appointment to the candidates referred to in the original application was given on the basis of recommendation given by respondent No.2. In view of this, the claim of the applicant is not maintainable as there is no cause of action in view of the fact that the selection had been made by the expert body by adopting set and established procedure and norms for all the candidates including the applicant.