SANT RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this original application applicant has challenged the selection/appointment of respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier in GPS Khanauti, Tehsil Kamarau, District Sirmour with the further prayer to quash and set aside the same and to appoint the applicant against the said vacancy as Part Time Water Carrier.

(2.) THE brief and relevant facts of the case as set out in the original application are that the respondents invited applications for filling up the post of part time water carrier in GPS Khanauti. Interview were held for the post of part time water carrier in which the applicant as well as respondent No. 5 alongwith others were interviewed. As per intimation given to all the candidates they were required to appear in the interview on the fixed date alongwith original certificates. The claim of the applicant is that he appeared for the interview before the selection committee alongwith required documents and other relevant papers. Subsequently he was not selected despite being meritorious and the name of respondent No. 5 was recommended for appointment which was done by the selection committee in an arbitrary manner by violating the scheme for appointment as part time water carrier. The main grievance of the applicant is that he has not been given marks under the head of distance from home to school and for unemployed family despite the fact that he has submitted the certificates concerning to both at the time of interview.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and have gone through their pleadings and record very carefully. The learned Counsel for the applicant relief upon the case law 1985(3) SLR 200, Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others. As per record the selected candidate got 22 marks and the applicant got only 21 marks. The Honble Apex Court in Dalpat Abasahe Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, 1990(1) SCC 305 has observed that the decision of Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala fide affecting the selection etc. In Durga Devi and Another v. State of H.P. and Others, AIR 1997 SC 2618, it is held that power to judge comparative merits of candidates and fitness for post is the function of duly constituted Selection Committee and the Tribunal cannot sit as appellate Court and quash selection. All these factors are missing from the case in hand. Neither any material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure has been pointed out nor the selection of respondent No. 5 as above is proved to be mala fide. The contention of the applicant who has cited case law 1985(3) SLR 200, Ashok Kumar yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others (supra) is not tenable as there is no challenge to the policy for recruitment to the post of part time water carrier in addition to this the applicant has participated in the selection process and only challenged the selection process after not being selected for the said post. Be it stated that certificate annexed with this original application for distance as well as for unemployment family are not similar. The perusal of record reveals that the certificate submitted by the applicant for distance as well as for unemployed family at the time of interview are issued by the pradhan concerned whereas the certificates annexed with this original application are issued by other authorities. Therefore, the certificates produced before the selection committee by the applicant were not admissible as per instructions issued in this behalf and selection committee has rightly not awarded marks for distance as well as for unemployed family. In view of above the selection of respondent No. 5 is in accordance with the scheme by a duly constituted committee. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant is not applicable as the facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely different. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court referred to above. I do not find any merit in the present original application and the same is rejected with no order as to costs. Original Application stands finally disposed of.