IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.13710 of 2008 (OA No.1833 of 2006) Date of decision: July 29, 2010. Ms. Nisha Minhas. …. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr. J.S. Rana Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The petitioner appeared in the interview for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) falling vacant in Government Primary School Kala Panga under Gram Panchayat Sanghnai alongwith 14 other candidates. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - Selection Committee constituted of the S.D.O. (Civil) of the concerned Sub-Division as Chairman, Pradhan Gram Panchayat concerned and Center Head Teacher as members. They selected respondent No.4 for the said post. Her selection has been assailed in this petition by the petitioner on the ground that the father of respondent No.4 being a Pradhan was one of the member of the Selection Committee and he should have rescued himself as a member of that Committee in view of the instructions issued by the Government and his participation in the selection process is not only contrary to the provisions of Rule 137 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, but materially effected the final result. 2. I have examined the record and the replies filed by respondents and also the Himachal Pradesh Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/ Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme, 2003 Annexure-I, which inter-alia provides a procedure for selection of Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/ Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT). 3. Clause 5 of the above Scheme, makes a provision for the constitution of the above Selection - 3 - Committee of which, S.D.O. (Civil) of the concerned Sub- Division shall be the Chairman with Pradhan Gram Panchayat and Center Head Teacher concerned as its members and Block Primary Education Officer of the concerned Block is Member-Secretary. There is also proviso added to it that where a near relative of any member of Selection Committee is appearing for the interview, such a member shall dissociate from the selection committee for concerned school. 4. The selection of respondent No.4 was made for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher for Govt. Primary School Kala Panga (UR), which fell in Gram Panchayat Sanghnai of which Shri Updesh Kumar father of respondent No.4 was the Pradhan. The record reveals that he actively participated in the selection of process and got selected his daughter respondent No.4. The interview record reveals that she was awarded 15 marks out of 15 in interview, whereas the petitioner Nisha Minhas, who was having 52 marks in qualification as against respondent No.4 who was having 46.38. The petitioner was awarded 8 marks in personal interview and her total score was 60, - 4 - whereas after awarding 15 marks out of total 15 in interview, respondent No.4 secured 61.38 thus had an edge over the petitioner because of the presence of her father as a member of Selection Committee and was selected as PAT. Therefore, her selection for the post of PAT is wrong and illegal being violative of the principle of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Further Clause (e) of para-5 of the method of recruitment and conditions of service of the Scheme aforesaid also provides that the Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/ Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) so recruited would be the employees of the Gram Panchayats, for all intents and purposes and will not have any claim for regularization- absorption in to Govt. job. 6. Whereas, Rule 137 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj (General) Rules, 1997 inter-alia provides that no person shall be employed by a Panchayat, if he is a near relative, which also include of its members. Therefore, for this reason also the selection of respondent No.4 by the Pradhan who is her father is wrong and illegal. - 5 - 7. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid statutory rules as also the proviso added to the Scheme, as referred to above, the selection of respondent No.4 is against the statutory provisions as well as against the spirit of the aforesaid Scheme and Constitution of India as aforesaid. Thus, the selection of respondent No.4 is held to be void abinito and is therefore quashed and set-aside. Consequently, respondent No.4 shall cease to work as Primary Assistant Teacher forthwith and would not be entitled for any remuneration henceforth. 8. However, it is made clear that in case the Scheme aforesaid is in vogue, the post of Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) in the said School shall be re-advertised, wherein petitioner and respondent No.4 shall be given a chance to compete, if otherwise found eligible as per the Scheme. 9. It is left open to the respondents to recover the amount paid to respondent No.4, as PAT if they so desire. 9. The petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti to the parties. July 29, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.