IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7772/2008 Decided on:30.11.2010 _____________________________________________ Smt. Salita Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1no For the petitioner(s): Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 Respondent No.4 already ex parte. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner passed her matriculation examination in the year 1988-89 and thereafter she obtained one year’s diploma in Cutting and Tailoring in the year 1994-95. She was appointed as Tailoring/Craft Teacher on the basis of scheme framed by the respondent-State in the year 2001 in Gram Panchayat, Nalti till 2000. Respondent-State issued fresh 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 notification dated 4.9.2000 whereby the earlier notification dated 18.8.1998 was superseded. According to the scheme, the Gram Panchayats were to be selected by the committee headed by Deputy Commissioner having Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional District Magistrate as Members and District Panchayat Officer as Member Secretary. Para 1 of the scheme provides for eligibility criteria. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for Tailoring/Craft Teacher is middle. Preference is to be given to the women candidates belonging to family which has no member in employment. The selection of the Tailoring/Craft Teacher is to be made on contract basis for a period of one year by a selection committee comprising of Block Development Officer, Pradhan Gram Panchayat and BDC member of the ward covering the Panchayat through transparent procedure. The Gram Panchayat is required to issue appointment letter to the selected candidate. There is no additional preference for any candidate who has been previously employed. It is also stipulated in the scheme that there will be no extension of appointment without selection after following selection procedure every year. Para 2 lays down the procedure for selection. Vocational/Tailoring Mistress is supposed to be the employee of Gram Panchayat and is under the supervision 3 and control of the Panchayat. Total marks to be allotted by the selection committee are 35. 15 marks have been carved out for educational qualification and 20 marks for professional qualification. Educational qualification is to be calculated on the basis of the highest educational qualification in the following manner: i) percentage of marks in middle divided by 6; ii) percentage of marks in matric divided by 4; iii) percentage of marks in plus two divided by 3; iv) percentage of marks in graduation/post graduation divided by 2; whichever is highest subject to a maximum of 15 marks. 2. Percentage of marks of marks for professional qualification obtained in two years I.T.I. course or any other recognized two years course is to be divided by 1.5 or percentage of marks in one year vocational course other than I.T.I. is to be divided by 2.5, whichever is highest subject to a maximum of 20 marks. The Gram Panchayat has to decide the selection of suitable place for vocational/tailoring centre and the location of the vocational/tailoring is to be rotated in different wards. The honorarium to be paid to the Tailoring/Craft Teacher is Rs. 700/- per month. 3. Petitioner was issued call letter for 22.3.2001 as per the scheme notified on 4.9.2000 pursuant to which she 4 was interviewed on 22.3.2001. Her name was recommended by the selection committee. However, respondent No.4 was offered appointment as Tailoring/Craft Teacher. 4. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal has strenuously argued that the selection of respondent No.4 is arbitrary, illegal, unjustifiable and thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, selection was to be made purely on the basis of merit for filling up the post of Tailoring/Craft Teacher in Gram Panchayat, Nalti. 5. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner could not be given any preference of her previous experience and according to him selection of respondent No.4 is as per the norms prescribed in the scheme. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. Petitioner had been called for interview pursuant to which she appeared before the duly constituted selection committee on 22.3.2001. She has secured 34.13 marks out of 35 marks and respondent No.4 secured 31 marks. Petitioner has not been offered appointment. However, appointment was offered to respondent No.4. Once petitioner has gone through the selection process strictly in conformity 5 with the scheme, there is no reason why she ought not to have been offered appointment by respondents No.1 to 3. She was found more meritorious vis-à-vis respondent No.4. The ground taken by the respondent-State in the reply is that respondent No.4 has been selected since no member from her family was in Government employment and she belongs to a poor family. It has not come in the reply that no member of the respondent No.4 family is in Government employment. The fact that respondent No.4 belongs to a poor family could not be sole criteria for selecting her. She has to compete with other candidates as per the scheme. Selection of respondent No.4 is in negation of the scheme framed by the respondent-State. Under the scheme, detailed and transparent procedure has been prescribed the manner in which the merits for educational and professional qualifications have to be drawn. This procedure was required to be followed scrupulously. The criteria for filling up the posts where the public money is involved should be merit alone. Accordingly, the appointment of respondent No.4 is declared illegal. However, since the appointment, as per the scheme, was for a period of one year, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this belated stage. Respondent- State is directed to be more careful in future while filling up 6 the posts of Tailoring/Craft Teachers. It has to be done strictly as per the merit drawn by the duly constituted selection committee. 8. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Dushyant Dadwal that the petitioner’s contract was to be renewed. It is clearly stipulated in the scheme that the appointment is for a period of one year and the posts are to be filled up by way of rotation after fresh selection. 9. In view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 30.11.2010 *awasthi*