CWP(T) No. 4282/2008 (OA No. 680/97) 16.4.2009 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Archana Dutt, vice counsel for respondent No. 4. The petitioner has assailed the selection of respondent No. 4 as Volunteer Teacher. The challenge is on the ground that the Selection Committee has awarded the marks in violation of the policy adopted by the respondent/State. In reply the State has categorically stated that the selection of the private respondent No. 4 was done in accordance with the scheme of Volunteer Teachers 1991 which laid down the following criteria for awarding marks: “1. QUALIFICATIONS ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL = 45marks 1. Matric ……20 marks 2. J.B.T. ……15 marks 3. B.A. …… 5 marks 4. B.Ed. …… 5 marks Total : 45 marks. 2. DISTANCE MARKS = 30 1. Within 3KMs distance from school = 30 marks 2. From 3 to 5 KM distance from school = 20 marks 3. From 5 KM to 8 KM distance from school= 10 marks 4. From 8 to 10 KMs distance marks from School = 5 marks 5. Beyond 10 KMs = Nil 3. INTERVIEW MARKS = 25 ___ Grand total = 100 marks ” Respondent No. 4 had obtained 57% marks in matriculation examination and therefore was rightly awarded 11 marks as per the aforesaid criteria. Similarly the distance of his house from the school was less than 3 kilometers hence the marks for the distance were rightly awarded. -2- From the record it cannot be shown that the distance of the village of the private respondent is beyond 3 kilometers. Simply because the petitioner’s house is at a distance of 60 metres from the school that by itself would not give him an advantage on this count. The criteria lays down that 30 marks is to be awarded for “distance within 3 kilometers from school”. Both the petitioner and the private respondent were awarded equal marks on this count. The petitioner who scored 62% marks in his matriculation examination was awarded 12 marks. The private respondent has also obtained 57% marks in his matriculation examination and rightly awarded 11 marks. The selection of the private respondent is through duly appointed and constituted Selection Committee which has applied its mind while awarding marks. It has taken into account the guidelines. It cannot be said that the selection is arbitrary, capricious or there has been non-application of mind. The petition which was admitted on 26.9.1997 has come up for hearing now. For all the aforesaid reasons I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Petition is disposed of as such. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 16, 2009 (PK)