1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 49 of 2010. Decided on: 19.10.2010. Bobby Ranjna …..Appellant. Versus Brij Bala & others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the appellant : Mr. C.N. Singh,Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral): This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.4.2010 rendered by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.8538 of 2008, assailing the appointment of appellant to the post of Gram Vidya Upasak in Government Primary School, Baghar. The post was notified on 28.3.2002 and the last date of receipt of the applications was 15.6.2002. The interview was held on 28.6.2002, the respondent No.1 had secured 48.5 marks and appellant had secured 59 marks and accordingly name of appellant was recommended for the post of Gram Vidya Upasak. 2. It is the case of respondent No.1 that she was entitled to 10 marks being local resident of Gram Panchayat, 2 Dhawas. On the contrary, appellant was not entitled for 5 marks being master of library and diploma course in computer training. The stand of the State is that respondent No.1 is not entitled to 10 marks as her name was not recorded in the Gram Panchayat, Dhawas. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The criteria for filling up the post of Gram Vidya Upasak is provided in Annexure A-1 dated 28.3.2002 on the writ file which provides 10 marks for graduate,5 marks to a person having certificate/diploma of at least one year duration in any Teachers Training Course from a recognized Board/University and 10 marks are allocated for being local resident within Panchayat. 4. The learned Single Judge has held that respondent No.1 was entitled to 10 marks for being local resident of Gram Panchayat, Dhawas and appellant was not entitled to 5 marks for having qualification of master of library and diploma course in computer training. The learned Single Judge has ultimately held that in case 10 marks are allocated to respondent No.1 herein being resident of Gram Panchayat, Dhawas and 5 marks are subtracted from the marks allocated to appellant then respondent No.1 herein will secure 58.5 marks and appellant 54 marks. After recording this finding, learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the appointment of appellant to the post of Gram Vidya Upasak in Govt. Primary School, Baghar. It has also been directed that the case of respondent No.1 be considered for 3 appointment to the post of Gram Vidya Upasak in Govt. Primary School, Baghar. 5. The copy of Family Register, Village Sagrah, Gram Panchayat Dhawas Annexure A-5 placed on the appeal file indicates that name of respondent No.1 was entered in Family Register, Gram Pachayat, Dhawas on 11.7.2002. The last date for submission of applications was 15.6.2002. The respondent No.1 and appellant were interviewed on 28.6.2002. The name of respondent No.1 even on the date of interview was not recorded in the Family Register village Sagrah, Gram Panchayat Dhawas. 6. It is no body’s case that Government Primary School, Baghar is not located in Gram Panchayat Dhawas. As per criteria dated 28.3.2002 for filling up the post of Gram Vidya Upasak, the local resident within the Panchayat is entitled for 10 marks. The respondent No.1 had got her name included in Family Register, Gram Panchyat, Dhawas only on 11.7.2002 after the interview, therefore, she is not entitled to 10 marks being local resident within the Panchayat. After exclusion of 10 marks for local resident respondent No.1 gets 48.5 marks as against appellant 54 marks. We are not going into the question whether appellant is entitled to 5 marks being master of library and diploma course in computer training in as much as even if 5 marks under this criteria are not given to appellant still she is above respondent No.1 in merit. 7. In view of above discussion judgment dated 20.4.2010 in CWP(T) No.8538 of 2008 is not sustainable and is 4 accordingly set aside. The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed. All the pending applications are also disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge. October 19, 2010 (sks)