IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA L.P.A. No. 406/2011 Date of decision: 28 .10. 2011 Shri Jagat Ram …..Appellant Versus Shri Bikram Singh and others. …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the appellant: Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.2 to 5: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General Justice Surinder Singh, J (Oral) The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP (T) No.6956 of 2008 decided on 27.5.2011 whereby the petition filed by the 1st respondent was allowed and the selection of the appellant herein as Panchayat Sahayak was quashed on the ground that four marks given to him for acquiring the qualification 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - of 10+2 in the year 2001 were wrongly, thus his score/merit became lower than that of the 1st respondent. Consequently, a direction was issued to respondent No.6-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat to consider the case of the 1st respondent for selection to the post of Panchayat Sahayak and to take a final decision in a time bound manner. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. 3. As a matter of fact, vacancy of Panchayat Sahayak arose in the year 1999 in Gram Panchayat, Bhakera, District Hamirpur. To fill-up the vacancy, process was initiated in the same year. In the said process, one Kehar Singh, who was allegedly a relative of Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat was selected, but did not report for pre-appointment training. However, his selection was successfully challenged by the 1st respondent on the ground that Kehar Singh being the relative of Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat, who had taken part in the selection process. Thus, his selection was set aside. Since - 3 - Kehar Singh had dropped out and notices were issued to the remaining candidates, i.e, appellant and the 1st respondent. 4. The basic qualification for the said post was matriculation. Appellant was matriculate in the year 1999 but because the earlier selection was challenged and the matter lingered on, in the meantime appellant qualified 10+2 examination in the year 2001 thus the appellant had an edge over the 1st respondent. He was declared successful by awarding four marks for being 10+2. The 1st respondent challenged awarding of four marks on the ground that the merit of the candidate as in the year 1999 was to be considered and not subsequent to that date. The learned Single Judge rightly upheld the contention raised by the 1st respondent. We are also of the considered view that the merit of the candidates has to be seen as it was in the year 1999 on the date of interview and not subsequent to it. 5. For the afore-stated reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, as such - 4 - the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Now respondent No.6-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat is hereby directed to take a final decision after considering the case of the 1st respondent, within a month from today. 6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending application also stands dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief justice October 28, 2011 (Justice Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.