IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12337/2008 Decided on:14.6.2011 _____________________________________________ Bansi Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Dhamrawali falling in Gram Panchayat, Bouhar. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he belongs to I.R.D.P. family. He has passed his matriculation examination in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 the month of September, 2003 and thereafter passed his 10+2 examination in the month of March, 2003. One vacancy of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Dhamrawali falling in Gram Panchayat, Bouhar, was notified as per scheme framed by the respondent-State vide Annexure A-4 dated 27.8.2003. The suitability of the petitioner was adjudged by a duly constituted selection committee for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. However, the selection committee recommended the name of respondent No.4 vide Annexure A-5 dated 11.8.2005. 2. Mr. Sunil Chaudhary has argued that the candidature of respondent No.4 could not be considered by the selection Committee since he does not belong to the same Panchayat, i.e. Gram Panchayat, Bouhar. 3. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. L.N. Sharma have supported the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. 4. Mr. L.N. Sharma has drawn the attention of the Court to clause 6 of Annexure-1, annexed with the scheme, i.e. Annexure A-4 dated 27.8.2003. A bare perusal of the same makes it clear that preference is to be given to the candidates belonging to the same 3 Panchayat for which the vacancy has been notified, failing which candidates belonging to adjoining Panchayats shall be considered and so on till suitable candidates become available. There is no dispute that petitioner belongs to Gram Panchayat, Bouhar. Government Primary School, Dhamrawali also falls within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Bouhar. Petitioner has secured 40 marks and respondent No. 4 has secured 64 marks. Respondent No.4 is also graduate and has been assigned 11.7 marks in the interview and the petitioner has been given 4.5 marks. Respondent No.4 belongs to village Dakoli, Gram Pram Panchayat Ruslaha, Sub Tehsil Nerwa. According to the averments contained in the reply filed by respondent No.4, Gram Panchayat, Ruslah is adjoining to Gram Panchayat Bouhar. No rejoinder has been filed to counter this fact. According to the scheme, only preference is given to the candidates belonging to the same Panchayat, failing which candidates belong to adjoining Panchayats can be considered. In the instant case, other candidates, who had appeared with petitioner, had also secured more marks than the petitioner. The teachers must be qualified and their selection should be based on merit. The children have 4 absolute right to be taught by the competent teachers. In the present case, respondent No.4 is a graduate and the petitioner has only passed 10+2 examination. The Court is of the considered view that restricting the public employment to a particular Panchayat or village will be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The endeavour of the State should be to select most suitable candidate as a teacher. In case the employment is restricted to a particular village, it will be counter productive to merit. The appointment on the basis of residence is bad. Moreover, Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the scheme, which was promulgated vide Annexure A-4 is not in vogue. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 14.6.2011 *awasthi*