IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPs No.778 & 1094 of 2004 Decided on : November 24, 2008 CWP No.778/2004 Nageshwari Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. CWP No.1094/2004 Meena Kumari …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, in CWP No.778 of 2004 and Mr. Ajay M. Goel & Ms Tanu Sharma, Advocate, in CWP No.1094 of 2004. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2 in both the petitions. Mr. Praveen Chandel, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 in CWP No.778 of 2004 and for respondent No.4 in CWP No. 1094 of 2004. Mr. Ajay M. Goel & Ms Tanu Sharma, Advocates, for respondent No.4 in CWP No.778 of 2004 and Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 in CWP No.1094 of 2004. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) These two writ petitions, under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India, are being disposed of by a Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… common judgment, as judicial review, in both the writ petitions, has been sought of the same order, i.e., order dated 14th September, 2004, of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. One writ petition has been filed by the original applicant, namely Nageshwari Devi, hereinafter called applicant, who is aggrieved by the order, to the extent it does not direct respondents No.1 and 2 to appoint her as Gram Vidya Upasak, in place of private respondent Meena Kumari, whose appointment has been quashed. This writ petition is titled Nageshwari Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (No.778 of 2004). The other writ petition (CWP No.1094 of 2004) has been filed by Meena Kumari, hereinafter called respondent No.4, whose appointment as Gram Vidya Upasak has been set aside by the impugned order of the Tribunal. 2. Facts, which need to be noticed for grasping the controversy, are as follows. It appears that applications were invited for appointment to one post of Gram Vidya Upasak in Government Primary School, Beral. Both, applicant Nageshwari Devi and respondent No.4 Meena Kumari, submitted applications for the post, alongwith some other candidates. According to the scheme, for appointment as Gram Vidya Upasak, ten marks, out of total 100 marks, are reserved for the candidates, who have their residence within the Gram Panchayat, in which the school is situated. Applicant Nageshwari Devi submitted a certificate, dated 26th July, 2002, Annexure R-1, alongwith her application, per which …3… she was resident of village Sui Nichli, falling in Gram Panchayat Beral. Interviews were held on 27th July, 2002. On the day of interviews, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, respondent No.3 (in Writ Petition No.778 of 2004), who had issued the certificate that applicant Nageshwari Devi was resident of village Sui Nichli, issued a letter, Annexure R-2, to the effect that the certificate was incorrect and it had been issued without making an enquiry. Because of the issuance of this letter, Annexure R-2, applicant Nageshwari Devi was not awarded any marks, under the column “Local/Panchayat resident”. Her total score was 42. Respondent No.4 Meena Kumari, who did not claim that she had her residence within the area of Gram Panchayat Beral, however, scored 52 marks (as per reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2). So, Meena Kumari was offered appointment and was appointed. Applicant Nageshwari Devi challenged her appointment, alleging that she, being the resident of the concerned Panchayat ought to have been awarded ten marks on that count and thus she was entitled to be appointed in place of respondent No.4 Meena Kumari. 3. Respondents contested the Original Application filed by applicant Nageshwari Devi. They took the plea that applicant Nageshwari Devi was resident of village Kandhar, falling within the area of Gram Panchayat Kandhar, and certificate Annexure R-1, dated 26th July, 2002, submitted by her, was not correct and so it had been cancelled, vide letter …4… dated 27th July, 2002, Annexure R-2, and rightly no mark had been awarded, on account of residence. 4. It appears that the Tribunal sent for the original record and noticed that initially Negeshwari Devi had been awarded ten marks, on account of her being resident of the same Panchayat, but subsequently those marks were scored out and total score was accordingly corrected. Tribunal allowed the Original Application, holding that scoring out of ten marks, on account of residence, was illegal and set aside the appointment of respondent No.4 Meena Kumari and directed that process be started afresh, for filling up the post of Gram Vidya Upasak. Applicant Nageshwari Devi is aggrieved by the order, to the extent that direction has not been given to the respondents-State to appoint her against the post of Gram Vidya Upasak, after quashing the appointment of respondent No.4 Meena Kumari. Respondent No.4 Meena Kumari is aggrieved by the quashing of her appointment. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. 6. There are some very important facts having bearing on the verdict of the case, which have not been noticed by the learned Tribunal, while disposing of the Original Application. Applicant Nageshwari Devi, even though claimed that she was resident of village Siu Nichli, which falls within the area of Panchayat Beral, yet in the Original Application she gave her address to be of village Kandhar, which falls in Gram Panchayat Kandhar. Also, in the affidavits submitted by …5… applicant Nageshwari Devi, she stated that she was resident of village Kandhar, without giving any satisfactory explanation, as to how she claimed herself to be resident of village Siu Nichli. Again, certificate Annexure R-1, dated 26th July, 2002, which was issued in favour of applicant Nageshwari Devi, was based on an entry in the Pariwar Register of Gram Panchayat Beral. Copy of the entry is Annexure P-5, in CWP No.1094 of 2004. This entry, as per note recorded by the Panchayat, was made only on 10th July, 2002, that is to say only 17 days before the interview was held. It is quite likely that this entry was manipulated only after the post of Gram Vidya Upasak was advertised. Now, when the entry was made after the advertisement of the post, it is anybody’s guess what creditability to this entry should be attached. Even in the writ petition, applicant Nageshwari Devi has shown herself to be resident of village Kandhar. She has filed a number of affidavits, one in support of writ petition and others in support of various applications. In most of the affidavits, she has shown herself to be resident of village Kandhar and in a few she has shown herself to be resident of village Sui Nichli. Learned Tribunal did not take all these facts into account, while concluding that ten marks awarded to applicant Nageshwari Devi, on account of her residence, had wrongly been scored out. 7. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in allowing the Original Application of applicant Nageshwari …6… Devi, who did not approach it with clean hands and suppressed very material facts, besides having managed to get herself entered as resident of village Siu Nichli, in the Pariwar Register, only a few days prior to the interview. Consequently, writ petition filed by respondent No.4 Meena Kumari, i.e. Writ Petition No.1094 of 2004, is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Writ Petition filed by applicant Nageshwari Devi, being CWP No.778 of 2004, is dismissed, in view of the allowing of the writ petition of respondent No.4 Meena Kumari and the setting aside of the order of the Tribunal. No order as to costs. Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ( R.B. Misra ), J. November 24, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.