DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A vacancy of DPE arose in Government Senior Secondary School, Jaddu Kuljar. The PTA Committee of the school concerned resolved to fill the vacancy aforesaid. Applications were invited from the eligible candidates. The petitioner along with other eligible candidates applied for being considered for selection for the aforesaid post/vacancy. Interviews for selecting the most meritorious candidate amongst the competing aspirants were held by the duly constituted committee on 10.5.2007. Respondent No. 6 having been awarded the highest marks by the selection committee concerned constituted him to be the most meritorious candidate amongst all the candidates, who participated in the interview for being considered to be selected to the post of DPE in the school concerned. The respondent No. 6 being the most meritorious candidate amongst the candidates interviewed by the interviewing committee concerned sequelled his having come to be appointed as DPE (on PTA basis) in Government Senior Secondary School, Jaddu Kuljar. The petitioner herein filed a complaint before the Inquiry Committee, Ghumarwin headed by the SDM, Ghumarwin assailing therein the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 as DPE in Government Senior Secondary School, Jaddu Kuljar. In the complaint filed by the petitioner herein before the aforesaid committee, it was alleged therein that the interviewing committee concerned had ignored the superior merit of the petitioner herein vis   -vis respondent No. 6, hence, had acted arbitrarily as well as discriminatorily vis   -vis the petitioner herein. The inquiry committee headed by the SDM, Ghumarwin while being seized of the complaint filed by the petitioner herein, challenging the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 as DPE in the school concerned, proceeded to scan as well as evaluate the marks allotted by the interviewing committee concerned, to both the petitioner herein and to the respondent No. 6 herein. The Inquiry Committee on scanning as well as evaluating the marks accorded to the petitioner herein and to the respondent No. 6, by the interviewing committee concerned, discerned therefrom that the interviewing committee concerned in transgression of the purported apposite instructions regulating besides governing the awarding of marks to the petitioner herein and to the respondent No. 6 herein, hence, had overlooked the superior merit of the petitioner herein vis   -vis the respondent No. 6 and had proceeded to, hence allot lesser marks to the petitioner herein qua his superior/higher educational qualifications than the one which were ordained to be meted qua them in consonance with the purported apposite instructions. In sequel the Chairman of the inquiry committee under his rendition comprised in annexure P -2 concluded that the selection of the respondent No. 6 herein by the Interviewing committee concerned was not liable to be upheld, besides it prepared a result -sheet awarding marks therein to the petitioner herein besides to the respondent No. 6 herein, as also to one Rekha Kumari on the anvil of the notification of 27.5.2008 issued by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5.

(2.) THE respondent No. 6 herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the inquiry committee headed by the SDM, Ghumarwin comprised in annexure P -2 took to assail it by filing an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur. The Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur reversed and set aside the findings recorded in annexure P -2 under his rendition comprised in annexure P -3. The core ground which prevailed upon the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur while reversing the findings and conclusions recorded in annexure P -2 was anvilled upon the factum of the authority which rendered annexure P -2 having founded its conclusions qua the interviewing committee concerned which awarded marks to the competing aspirants under various heads of educational qualifications possessed by each of them in the interview held for selecting amongst them, the candidate possessing the superior most merit for recommendation for appointment to the post of DPE in the school concerned, having detracted from the criterion/norms governing and regulating the awarding of marks to them solely by sheer mis -application to the method, manner and quantum of awarding of marks to the competing aspirants under each head of educational qualifications possessed by each of the candidates, the notification of 27.5.2008. However, given the fact that the process for selection from amongst the eligible aspirants who had applied for being selected to the post of DPE in the school concerned, the candidate possessing superior most merit, having commenced on 10.5.2007, then naturally the rules besides the notification governing the quantum of marks to be awarded by the interviewing committee concerned to each of the candidates for theirs possessing the educational qualifications, as in force then rather governed besides regulated the quantum of marks to be awarded by the interviewing committee concerned to the competing aspirants qua each of the heads of the educational qualifications possessed by each of them. In other words, the norms or the notification in force at the time contemporaneous to the holding of interviews by the interviewing committee concerned for selecting a suitable candidate for recommendation for appointment to the post of DPE in the school concerned, regulated or governed the awarding of quantum of marks by the interviewing committee concerned to each of the aspirants qua each of the heads of educational qualifications possessed by each of them. In sequel, the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur in his rendition comprised in Annexure P -3 while reversing the findings and conclusions recorded by the SDM, Ghumarwin, who headed the inquiry Committee for deciding the complaint preferred by the petitioner herein, challenging the appointment of respondent No. 6 herein, concluded that the criteria applied besides adopted by the duly constituted interviewing committee for selecting from amongst the competing aspirants the most meritorious candidates for being recommended for appointment to the post of DPE in the school concerned, was both reverable besides sustainable.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge of this Court while deciding the writ petition preferred before this court at the instance of the petitioner herein, assailing the rendition of the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, comprised in annexure P -3 for reasons as meted out therein, concluded that the impugned Annexure P -3 was unsustainable. The prime reason as meted out by the learned Single Judge for reversing the findings and conclusions recorded in annexure P -3 by the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur were anvilled upon the factum that with the latter having in paragraph 5 extracted hereinafter, recited therein the norms/criterion as applicable for the awarding of or allotment of marks to the competing candidates by the interviewing committee concerned, had remained oblivious besides overlooked the factum of 10% marks being awardable to the petitioner herein for his possessing the educational qualification of M. Phill. Since the petitioner herein possessed the aforesaid educational qualification at the time contemporaneous to his having applied for being selected and appointed to the post concerned, hence, it was held that the interviewing committee concerned in derogation thereof having allotted to him only 2.6 marks, whereas in consonance thereto he was entitled for an award of 6.5 marks by the interviewing committee concerned especially when 6.5 marks comprised 10% of the marks allocable to him for his possessing at the time contemporaneous to his having applied for his being considered to be selected and appointed to the post of DPE in the school concerned, the aforesaid apposite educational qualification. In sequel with compliance having been not meted out by the interviewing committee concerned to the mandate elucidated in paragraph 5 of Annexure P -3, the learned Single Judge concluded that there was gross under allocation of marks to the petitioner herein by the interviewing committee concerned qua the aforesaid apposite educational qualification possessed by him. Consequently, the learned Single Judge of this Court quashed and set aside annexure P -3.