IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8849/2008 Reserved on: 3.3.2011 Decided on:9.3. 2011 _____________________________________________ Kaushalya Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No.4 already ex parte. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate vice Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Pabas, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. Petitioner is a widow. She belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The distance between the school and her 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 residence is less than one kilometer. Interviews were held on 3.7.2002. Respondent No.5 has been selected and appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Pabas. 2. Mr. Inderjeet Singh has strenuously argued that the Selection Committee has manipulated/indulged in over- writing the marks in the result sheet and have unduly favoured respondent No.5. 3. Mr. Anshul Bansal has vehemently argued that as directed by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, supplementary affidavit was filed, which is at page 37 of the paper book. 4. Respondent No.4 has already been proceeded ex parte. Mr. Umesh Kanwar appearing vice counsel for respondent No.5 has supported his selection. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. The Court had directed the respondents to produce the record of the selection to the post of Part Time Water Carrier on 8.12.2010. Consequently, the record was produced. A bare perusal of the result sheet reveals that initially petitioner was awarded 6 marks in viva-voce examination and her total was 24 marks. Respondent No.5 3 was initially given 3 marks in viva-voce examination and his grand total was 18 marks. However, the Selection Committee illegally by over writing has reduced the marks of the petitioner from 6 to 3 in viva-voce examination thereby reducing the petitioner’s tally to 21 marks. Similarly, the Selection Committee has substituted 3 marks by 7 marks in viva-voce examination of respondent No.5, which has increased the total marks of respondent No.5 to 22 in the result sheet. These over-writings/manipulations carried out by the Members of the Selection Committee are apparent to the naked eyes. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the Block Elementary Education Officer pursuant to order dated 28.2.2008, she has clearly admitted that over-writing has been made in the result sheet and the selection has been made on the basis of these marks. The Members of the Selection Committee have unduly favoured respondent No.5 by manipulating/over-writing in the result sheet. Petitioner, who had initially secured 24 marks in sequel to interview held on 3.7.2002 has been relegated to No.2 in the merit list by awarding her 21 marks and respondent No.5, who initially was granted 18 marks has been given undue advantage of 4 marks by increasing his tally to 22 marks. Petitioner on the basis of 24 marks obtained by her originally, was to be 4 selected. Respondent No.5 has originally secured 18 marks. The Court strongly deprecates the manipulations/over- writings carried out by the Members of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee has to discharge its duties in a just, fair and transparent manner. In the instant case, manipulation undertaken by the Members of the Selection Committee has deprived the petitioner, who is a widow having minor children to get appointed to the post of Part Time Water Carrier, that too on a meagre salary. There is also a variance in the certificates placed on record with regard to distance from the house of respondent No.5 to Government Primary School, Pabas. This variance in distance has not been explained by respondent No.5 satisfactorily. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Pabas is quashed and set aside. He shall cease to work as Part Time Water Carrier forthwith. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner with a further direction to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Moshrohn to do the needful within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by 5 the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is directed to supply the names of the Members of the Selection Committee, who interviewed the candidates for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Pabas held on 3.7.2002 within a period of three weeks from today by filing separate supplementary affidavit in order to institute disciplinary proceedings against them for blatantly/brazenly manipulating/over-writings in the result sheet. The record produced, is returned. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 9.3. 2011 *awasthi*