IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 15179 of 2008 Date of decision: 04.07.2011. Kanchan Kumari …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P.& others. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.5. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The petitioner has assailed the selection of respondent No.5 as Panchayat Sahayak in Gram Panchayat, Jarwa Nakhlehra on the basis of interview held on 28.9.2006 with a further prayer to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in place of respondent No.5. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applications were invited for the post of Panchayat Sahayak in Gram Panchayat, Nakhlehra. The petitioner was a candidate for the said post and she Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… was called for the interview on 28.9.2006. The respondent No.5 was selected and he joined as Panchayat Sahayak on 1.11.2006. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the SDO (C), Ghumarwin against the selection of respondent No.5 which was rejected on 20.4.2007. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No.5 has been awarded 47.09 marks and petitioner 46.36 marks. In the marks of respondent No.5, tampering has been done. The Pradhan, Gram Panchayat was the member of the selection committee, besides Chairman Panchayat Samiti and BDO, but the Pradhan has not signed the marks sheet. 15 marks were allocated for the interview, 5 marks were allocated to each member of the committee. 4. The petitioner has further stated that after the declaration of the result, she approached the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Nakhlehra, who issued certificate dated 2.1.2007 Annexure A-5 which indicates that original marks sheet was signed by the Pradhan but lateron the marks sheet was changed which does not bear the signature of the Pradhan. 5. The respondents No.1 to 3 have contested the petition by filing reply, in which it has been submitted that in the interview the petitioner had secured 46.36 marks and respondent No.5 47.09 marks. The selection of respondent No.5 was on merit. The Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat had signed on the top of the merit …3… list. The respondent No.5 has filed separate reply and has stated that petitioner has concealed material facts. The mother of the petitioner is in Government service and is working as Water Carrier at Govt. Middle School, Bajura. The petitioner secured 5 marks by concealing this fact, hence the petition is not maintainable. A plea has also been taken that the person who allegedly tampered the record has not been made party. The Pradhan has no power to issue certificate relied by the petitioner as he is dismissed from the post and petitioner has manipulated the certificate by playing fraud and mis- representation. The respondent No.5 is physically challenged person. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the replies filed by the respondents and reiterated her stand as taken in the petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on Annexure A-4 merit list and has submitted that it has only been signed by the two members of the Committee namely Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Jhandutta and B.D.O. The merit list has not been signed by the Pradhan. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that since the merit list has not been signed by the third member namely Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Nakhlehra, therefore, the selection of respondent No.5 has vitiated and no reliance can be placed on the selection/merit list Annexure A-4. On the contrary, it is …4… the stand of respondents No.1 to 3 that the Pradhan has signed the selection/merit list on the top of the list. The petitioner has not stated who allegedly tampered with the list. There are no specific allegations against the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Jhandutta and B.D.O. the other members of the selection committee. The certificate dated 2.1.2007 Annexure A-5 issued by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Nakhlehra, cannot be read that Pradhan is referring to selection/merit list Annexure A-4 in certificate dated 2.1.2007. The certificate is general in nature. The respondent No.4 has not filed any reply. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on certificate dated 2.1.2007 Annexure A-5. It has not been elaborated why Chairman, Panchayat Samiti and BDO should join hands in tampering the list. The Pradhan in the certificate Annexure A-5 has not denied signing of selection list though allegedly that list was different. The petitioner has failed to make out a case that respondent No.5 has been wrongly selected after tampering the selection/merit list. There is no merit in the petition. 7. The result of the above discussion, petition fails and accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. July 4, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.