IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 7364 of 2008. Reserved on: 06.01.2011. Decided on: 21.02.2011. __________________________________________________________ Tej Ram. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Takniki Sahayak in Gram Panchayats Thachi, Murah, Kau. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was more meritorious vis-à-vis respondent No.4. According to him, the Selection Committee has manipulated the marks allotted to respondent No.4. The case of the respondent-State and respondent No.4, in a nutshell, is that the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - appointment letter has been issued to respondent No.4 in accordance with law. 2. Respondent-State has issued a notification dated 21st October, 2000 whereby guidelines have been framed for engaging technical staff in Gram Panchayats. The technical staff was designated as ‘Takniki Sahayak’. The notification has been issued on 21st October, 2000. Selection procedure has been laid down under para 5 of the Scheme. 5 marks have been provided for diploma in engineering. 3 marks have been provided for diploma in draughtsman/surveyors. 10 marks have been provided for performing degree/diploma, 10 marks have been provided for experience. If no member of family is in Government service, 5 marks are provided and if the candidate belongs to same 2-3 Panchayats, 5 marks have been provided. 10 marks have been provided for interview. Petitioner and respondent No.4 were interviewed on 17.7.2001. Respondent No.4 has been issued appointment letter on the basis of interview held on 17.7.2001. Respondent-State was directed to produce the records. Consequently, the records have been produced by Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General. 3. A bare perusal of the records reveals that initially no marks were given to respondent No.4 for experience and only hyphen was put, however, subsequently 6 marks have been given to him for the same. The ink used in giving 6 marks is different from the rest of the ink used in the result sheet. Petitioner as per this mark sheet has secured 31 marks and respondent No.4 has secured 32 marks. In case 6 marks are taken out, in that eventuality, the petitioner shall steal march over respondent No.4. - 3 - 4. Mr. T.C. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has strenuously argued that his client has been issued experience certificate as per Annexure R-4 by Manuj Construction, dated 27.1.2001. I have perused Annexure R-4. It is a photo copy. In the original records produced before the Court also respondent No.4 has annexed the photo copy. The experience certificate produced by respondent No.4 does not seem to be genuine. Respondent No.4 or the State should have placed the original certificate on record. It is also apparent that the original certificate was never produced by respondent No.4 before the selection committee and that is why he was not given any marks for experience at first instance. Initially, only hyphen was put in the experience column and later on 6 marks have been given to respondent No.4. It is settled law that the Court generally does not sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, however, in the present case, the manipulations carried out in the result sheet are clear to the naked eyes. Respondent No.4 has wrongly been given the benefit of 6 marks towards experience to which he was not legally entitled. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent No.4 as Takniki Sahayak in Gram Panchayats, Thachi, Murah, Kau pursuant to interview held on 17.7.2001 is quashed and set aside. Respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to offer appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of three weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. February 21, 2011. (sck).