IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 2522 of 2008. Reserved on: 21.5.2009. Decided on: 25.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Kumari Kamlesh … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1,3&4 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2& 5 : Nemo. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner submitted an application for consideration to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in the Government Primary School, Shahgai. She was directed to make herself available before the Selection Committee on 30.8.2006. She was interviewed on 30.8.2006. However, the Selection Committee had recommended the name of respondent No.6 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Shahgai. Ms. Rita Goswami has strenuously argued that the appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Primary Assistant 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Teacher is illegal, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She then contended that respondent No.2 in connivance with respondent No.5 had not issued her client the certificate of “unemployed family” before the interviews i.e. 30.8.2006. She then contended that the certificate was issued by respondent No.2 only on 31.8.2006 and this fact was brought to the notice of respondent No.4 on 2.9.2006. She lastly contended that the certificate produced by her client on 2.9.2006 was required to be taken into consideration. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the interviews were held on 30.8.2006 and the certificate obtained by the petitioner on 31.8.2006 could not be looked into by the Selection Committee. In other words, his submission is that the Selection Committee constituted under the scheme had become functus officio. He then contended that since the appointments to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher are made by the Gram Panchayat, Kushwa, the same was required to be arrayed as a party respondent. Mr. Adarsh Sharma has submitted that the services of his client were terminated immediately after the filing of this petition. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. The appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teachers is governed under the notification issued on 27.8.2003. There is a detailed procedure the manner in which the recruitment of these teachers is to be undertaken. The Appointing Authority of the Primary Assistant Teacher is the Gram Panchayat. The vacancies 3 are required to be notified after their identification. The Selection Committee comprises of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) of the concerned Sub Division, Prandhan, Gram Panchayat, Central Head Teacher of the concerned Centre and the Block Primary Education Officer of the concerned Block. There is procedure for giving weightage as per the norms prescribed in the scheme. The scheme was notified on 17.5.2005 whereby the candidates belonging to “unemployed families” were entitled to get ten marks. The petitioner was interviewed on 30.8.2006. Her case is that she had approached respondent No.2 for the issuance of certificate of “unemployed family”. The certificate was not issued by respondent No.2 on the pretext that the same was to be issued by the Tehsildar. This is evident from Annexure A-2. She was issued certificate by respondent No.2 on 31.8.2006. However, by the time the certificate was issued to her by respondent No.2, the interviews had already taken place. The respondent No.6 was selected to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. As per submissions of Mr. Adarsh Sharma, the appointment was cancelled immediately after the filing of this petition. The petitioner has only brought to the notice of the Block Primary Education Officer about with-holding of the issuance of certificate to the petitioner after the interviews were already over. In these circumstances, the certificate issued by respondent No.2 cannot be directed to be taken into consideration. The certificate was required to be produced at the time of interview i.e. on 30.8.2006 before the Selection Committee. Ms. Rita Goswami has vehemently argued that the delay in issuing the certificate by respondent No.2 was at the behest of 4 respondent No.5 who is brother of the selected candidate i.e. respondent No.6. It is not clear from the scheme framed in the year 2003, who was the competent authority to issue the certificate of “unemployed family”. The respondent No.2 has initially told the petitioner that the certificate was required to be issued by the Tehsildar. However, he had issued the same to the petitioner on 31.8.2006. The certificate issued on 31.8.2006 could not be taken into consideration once the Selection Committee constituted under the scheme had become functus officio after recommending the candidate of respondent No.6. Ms. Rita Goswami has relied upon Seema Kumar Sharma (Mrs.) versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 1997 (1) Services Law Reporter 32 in support of her submission that the certificate issued by the Pradhan on 31.8.2006 was required to be looked into by the Selection Committee. The judgment cited by Ms. Rita Goswami is distinguishable. In this case, the certificate was already on the record whereby the candidate had claimed belonging to I.R.D.P. family. In these circumstances, she could not be deprived of ten marks. In the present case, no certificate was on record at the time when the Selection Committee met on 30.8.2006. The certificate in fact was issued, as noticed above, by respondent No.2 on 31.8.2006 itself. Thus, she was not entitled to get ten marks. The respondent No.5 is real brother of respondent No.6. He could not be the member of the Selection Committee. It may be in these circumstances that the services of respondent No.6 were terminated by the State at their own level. 5 Ms. Rita Goswami has further contended that she has brought to the notice of Selection Committee on 30.8.2006 the circumstances in which she has not been provided with the certificate by respondent No.2. The petitioner has not added the Selection Committee as a party-respondent. This averment raised by the petitioner could only be answered by the members of the Selection Committee, if added as party. In fact, Selection Committee was a necessary party for effective adjudication of this petition. The appointments to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher as per the scheme notified on 27.8.2003 as amended from time to time makes it clear that the appointment to these posts are to be made by the concerned Gram Panchayats. The petitioner has not arrayed the Gram Panchayat as party-respondent in whose jurisdiction the school is situated and was appointing authority. The petition is bad for non-joinder as well. The petitioner ought to have arrayed the Selection Committee as well as the Gram Panchayat, Kushwa, Tehsil Nirmand as party-respondent. The Gram Panahcyat, Kushwa could only be represented through the Secretary and arraying of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat only is not sufficient. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 25, 2009. (cr) 6