IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.6956 of 2008 Date of decision : May 27, 2011 Bikram Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms Archana Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) In the year 1999, there was a vacancy of Panchayat Sahayak, in Gram Panchayat Bhakera, District Hamirpur. Process for filling that vacancy was initiated. One Kehar Singh, who happened to be a relative of Up Prahdan of the said Panchayat, was selected. He, however, did not report for training, which was required to be undergone before appointment. His selection was challenged by respondent No.6 Jagat Ram, on the ground that Up Pradhan of the Panchayat, who was his relative, had taken part in the selection process. Erstwhile H.P. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… State Administrative Tribunal, before which that selection was challenged, allowed the claim of respondent No.6 and quashed the selection of said Kehar Singh. Direction was given to the Panchayat to consider the case of respondent No.6 for appointment as Panchayat Sahayak, according to his merit and in case he was found fit he was to be given seniority from the date from which similarly situated persons had been appointed. Thereafter, notices were issued to the persons who had applied for the post. Initially, there were three persons, including Kehar Singh. Kehar Singh’s selection having been quashed, on account of his being relative of Up Pradhan of the Panchayat, notices were issued only to the remaining persons, i.e. respondent No.6 Jagat Ram and the present petitioner. They were to be awarded marks, as per suggested criteria, copy of which is available on record. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 Jagat Ram had been awarded four marks, on account of his possessing qualification of 10+2, though he was not entitled to such marks, on account his having acquired that qualification in the year 2001, or say more than two years after the date when the earlier selection process stood completed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. …3… 4. Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application, filed by respondent No.6, vide order dated 15th October, 2004, copy Annexure A-1, directed that seniority was to be given to respondent No.6, in case of his being found fit for selection, from the date when similarly situated persons had been appointed. Though the order is not happily worded, but it appears that the intention of the Tribunal was that respondent No.6, in case of being appointed, was to be deemed to have been selected and appointed from the date when Kehar Singh, whose selection he had challenged, had been selected and seniority was to be assigned to him, accordingly. Implication of this order is that merit of the candidates, i.e. respondent No.6 and the petitioner, as on the date of the making of the applications, for the post or at the most on the date when the interviews were initially conducted, was to be assessed. Interviews were initially conducted in the year 1999 and Kehar Singh was selected. Therefore, merit of the candidates, as in the year 1999, was to be considered. Admittedly, respondent No.6 was not possessing qualification of 10+2 at that time and so he was not to be awarded any marks, on account of his possessing 10+2 qualification, which he acquired in the year 2001. …4… 5. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is allowed and selection of respondent No.6 is quashed, because in case four marks are deducted from his total score, his score/merit would be lower than that of the petitioner. Respondent No.5 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for selection to the post of Panchayat Sahayak and to take final decision, within one month from today. Petition stands disposed of. May 27, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J