IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1005 of 2004 Date of decision: 19.8.2008 Sohan Lal Petitioner Vs. Kundu Ram and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R. B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.S.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate For respondent No.1: Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate For the Respondents 2 to 4: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Per Surjit Singh, J. Writ petitioner has challenged the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, dated 30th September, 2004 (Annexure P-1), whereby allowing the original application No. 2323 of 2002, filed by respondent No.1, Kundu Ram, challenging the appointment of the writ petitioner as Gram Vidya Upasak, the learned tribunal has quashed and set aside the appointment of the writ petitioner and directed respondents No. 2 to 5 to hold fresh selection for the post of Gram Vidya Upasak. 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2 2. Relevant facts may be noticed first. A scheme, known as Himachal Pradesh Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna-2001, was introduced by the Government of Himachal Prdesh, Directorate of Primary Education, vide letter dated 23.4.2002 (Annexure P-3). The scheme lays down the criteria for selection of Gram Vidya Upasaks, vide para 11.8, which reads as follows:- “11.8. Selection Criteria and procedure Weightage will be given in following manner for the first year appointee of the FIRST BATCH of recruitment of Gram Vidya Upasaks: i) +2 marks (actual percentage secured) to be calculated out of = 50 marks ii) Graduate and above = 10 marks iii) Certificate/Diploma of atleast one year’s duration in any Teachers Training Course from a recognized Board/University = 5 marks iv) Local residence within the Panchayat = 10 marks v) SC/ST = 5 marks vi) OBC = 5 marks vii) Physically handicapped/disabled. = 5 marks viii) IRDP families = 2 marks. ix) Viva = 10 marks For subsequent recruitment in the subsequent year weightage of +2 percentage will be calculated on a 40 marks base and the percentage of marks secured in the qualifying one year (Gram Vidya Upasak) Teacher Training Course the percentage of marks will be calculated on a 25 marks base. The break-up of marks for subsequent year/recruitment will be as under:- i) +2 marks (actual percentage 4 marks secured to be calculated out of ii) Graduate and above 5 marks iii) One year GVU Teachers Training 25 marks Course iv) Local Resident (within the 10 marks Panchayat 3 v) SC/ST 5 marks vi) OBC 5 marks vii) Physically handicapped/disabled 5 marks viii) IRDP families 2 marks ix) Viva 5 marks” 3. There was one post of Gram Vidya Upasak in Primary School, Kothi. The present writ petitioner, respondent No.1, Kudu Ram and some other persons applied for the post. The writ petitioner was selected and appointed, as his merit was assessed higher than that of other candidates. Kudu Ram, respondent No.1, challenged his appointment by filing original application before the learned State Administrative Tribunal. The plea taken by him was that he was resident of the Panchayat within the area in which the school was situated and also he belonged to I.R.D.P. family and also no member of his family was employed, whereas the present writ petitioner, who was impleaded as respondent No. 5 in the said original application, was employed as a Home Guard Volunteer and his sister was also employed in some government department. Reply was filed by the State and its functionaries, i.e. respondents No. 2 to 4 herein, in which it was stated that the present writ petitioner being more meritorious than all other candidates, including respondent No.1 Kudu Ram , had been selected and appointed. Respondent No. 5, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, who was a member of the selection committee, filed a separate reply. He stated that the present writ petitioner did not belong to the Panchayat and also he was already working as 4 Home Guard Volunteer. However, he admitted that the present writ petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.1, Kudu Ram. 4. Learned tribunal noticed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durgi Devi and another Vs. State of H.P. and others, AIR 1997 S.C. and Kuldeep Chand Vs. State of H.P., 1997 (2) SLR 798 to the effect that courts and tribunals should not interfere in the matters of selection made by duly constituted selection committees, but held that in the present case the selection stood vitiated and resultantly, the appointment of the present writ petitioner was bad in law, being violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. 5. We have heard the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the order of the learned tribunal. We have also gone through the relevant portion of the scheme (Annexure P-3). 6. The learned tribunal has observed that even though the Pradhan of the Panchayat endorsed the minutes of the selection committee which selected the present writ petitioner for appointment as Gram Vidya Upasak, her written reply indicated that in fact she was not agreeable to the selection of the present writ petitioner. The view taken by the learned tribunal is contrary to observations made elsewhere in its order by the learned tribunal. Elsewhere it has been observed by the learned tribunal that the only thing which the Pradhan of the Panchayat has stated against the present writ petitioner in her 5 reply is that he is not resident within the area of the Panchayat in which the school is situate and also he was employed as a Home Guard Volunteer at the relevant time. 7. These two factors could not have dis-qualified the present writ petitioner from being considered for selection and appointment to the post of Gram Vidya Upasak. The criteria for selection laid down in the scheme (Annexure P-3) vide para 11.8, as reproduced hereinabove, provides for weightage upto 10 marks to the candidates who have their residences within the area of the Panchayat in which the concerned school falls and also weightage of 2 marks to candidates belonging to I.R.D.P. families. The scheme nowhere provides that the candidates who do not have their residences within the Panchayat concerned or who do not belong to I.R.D.P. families are not to be considered for selection and appointment. Respondent No. 5, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, categorically stated in her reply to the original application filed before the learned tribunal that the present writ petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.1, Kudu Ram. 8. In the reply filed by respondents No. 2 to 3 before the learned tribunal, details of the marks obtained by the present writ petitioner and Kudu Ram, under various heads, were shown in para 6. Copy of that reply is on record as Annexure P-7. A reading of the comparative merit of the present writ petitioner and respondent No.1, Kudu Ram, shows that while the writ petitioner secured 49.9marks, respondent No. 1, Kudu Ram, secured only 33 marks. The weightage of 10 6 marks on account of residence within Panchayat was given to both of them. The contention of respondent No. 1 was that the writ petitioner was not having his residence within the Panchayat. Respondent No.5, Pradhan of the Panchayat, in her reply also stated that the writ petitioner was not resident of the Panchayat. That means, he could not have been awarded 10 marks on this count. Now even 10 marks on account of residence are excluded from the aggregated score of the writ petitioner, still his score remains higher than that of respondent No.1, Kudu Ram almost by 6.9 marks. 9. In view of the above stated factual position, we fail to understand how the learned tribunal has come to the conclusion that the entire process of selection stood vitiated being violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. 10. As an upshot of the above discussion, we hold that the order of the learned tribunal is patently bad in law. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 30.4.2004, (Annexure P-1), of the learned tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs. ( R. B. Misra ), J. August 19, 2008(K) ( Surjit Singh ), J.