The committee could not screen the candidates properly due to improper composition of the Board: High Court of Shimla

 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 06 04 HCHP 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLALPA Nos.13 with LPA No. 520.Reserved on :March 03 2021.Date of Decision : April 06 2021.LPA No. 13State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant.VersusSuresh Kumar Sharma & Others ….Respondents.LPA No. 520.Bachittar Singh & Others ….Appellants versusSuresh Kumar Sharma & Others ….Respondents.Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Chief JusticeThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara Judge.Whether approved for reporting 1 For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Sharma A.G. with Mr. Adarsh Sharma Ms. Rita Goswami& Mr. Nand Lal Thakur Addl. A.Gs.and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur Dy. A.G. for the appellant in LPA No.5of 2013.Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate for the appellants in LPA No. 520.For the respondents:None for respondent No.1 in both theappeals. Mr. Ashok Sharma A.G. with Mr. Adarsh Sharma Ms. Rita Goswami& Mr. Nand Lal Thakur Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur Dy. A.G. for respondent No.2 in LPA No. 520.1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Hig h C o urt of H.P on 06 04 HCHP 2 Ms. Neelam Advocate vice Ms. Archna Dutt Advocate forrespondent No.2 in LPA No. 13and for respondent No.3 in LPA No. 520.Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan Senior Advocate withMr. Rajesh Kumar Advocate for respondents No.3 4 & 6 in LPA No. 13 and forrespondents No.4 5 & 7 in LPA No. 520.Mr. Devender K. Sharma Advocate for respondent No.5 in LPA No 5 of2013 and for respondent No.6 in LPA No. 520.Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate for respondents No.7 to 11 in LPA No. 13.Mr. Avinash Jaryal Advocate for respondents No.12 & 13 in LPA No. 13 and for respondents No.8 and 9 in LPA No. 520.Anoop Chitkara Judge .Challenging the judgment passed by learned Single Bench ofthis Court the private respondents as well as the State of HimachalPradesh have come up before this Court under clause 10 of theLetters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Lahore applicable to theHimachal Pradesh High Court seeking its reversal. Since both theLPAs are challenging the same judgment as such are being taken upand decided together. 2.In both matters the petitioner was arraigned as respondentNo.1. As per the instructions received by his counsel later on thepetitioner got employment somewhere else on a better footing as Hig h C o urt of H.P on 06 04 HCHP 3 such learned counsel representing him states that he is not seriouslycontested the petition. 3.Aggrieved by the inclusion of those persons as experts whoaccording to the petitioner respondent No.1 could not have been thepetitioner respondent No.1 challenged the same by filing originalapplication before the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal. After theabolition of the Tribunal the matter was transferred to this Court andre registered as CWP(T) No.83108. The grievance of thepetitioner taken up in Original Application was that his candidaturedid not figure in the result of lecturerCommerce despite the fact that he was more qualified and he has also passedthe screening test and had six years teaching experience. 4.The legal grouse of the petitioner was that in all the SubordinateService Selection Board had advertised 32 posts of School CadreLecturerof the Administrative Tribunal Rulesseeking impleadment on the ground that in the original applicationthe selection of the entire category had been challenged due toabsence of expert as such they were necessary party. After that theywere arraigned as respondents 3 to 13. During the pendency of theOriginal Application the Government abolished the StateAdministrative Tribunal. Consequently the matter was transferred tothis Court and re registered as CWP(T) 83108. Vide judgmentdated 3.4.2012 learned Single Judge allowed the petition andquashed the appointments of private respondents No.3 to 13.9. Challenging the said judgment the private respondents as wellas the State have come up before this Court by filing separateappeals as mentioned above.10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone throughthe record.11. Learned Single Judge has given reasoning that the purpose ofassociating the subject expert is to analyze the in depth study of thecandidate of the subject and assessment suitability of thecandidates. Learned Single Judge further holds that the departmentdid not assign any reason for not including a subject expert in theinterview and went on to hold that the Principal belongs to economicsand as such he could not be treated as subject expert of commerce. Hig h C o urt of H.P on 06 04 HCHP 6 Thus according to learned Single Judge out of the three interviewmembers only one i.e. government nominee had the knowledge ofcommerce and other two did not. Be that as it may it was not theissue before the learned Single Judge. The grievance of the petitionerwas non participation of the expert from the field of commerce and hespecifically pleaded that four persons were in the interview Board whereas in his case only three were present. He never objected toinclusion of Principal and other persons. It appears that the learnedcounsel representing the petitioner did not bring the pleadings to theknowledge of learned Single Judge which led to the oversight andresultantly incorrect findings. On the face of it 32 candidates wereselected as per advertisement Annexure A 4 and due to misfortune 11 selected candidates chose to be arraigned as parties and wereadded as respondents No.3 to 13 however the remaining selectedcandidates were fortunate enough and did not make any suchapplication for impleadment. 12.Learned Single Judge instead of giving relief to the petitioner quashed the appointments of respondents 3 to 13 and did not eventouch the selection of the other candidates. This is otherwise ignoringthe fact that the advertisement of selected candidates wherein 32names were mentioned whereas the petitioner was concerned onlywith the batch in which subject expert did not participate moreparticularly his own selection and that is why he has arraigned themas party. Out of the total selected candidates it was only eleven Hig h C o urt of H.P on 06 04 HCHP 7 candidates who on their own became party. We are of the consideredopinion that the attention of the learned Single judge was not drawncorrectly to the facts.13.Given above both the appeals are allowed and the judgmentdated 3.4.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.8312 of2008 is set aside. Pending application(s) if any shall also standdisposed of. Chief Justice. April 06 2021Judge 

Summary: Due to this improper composition of the Board, the Committee could not screen candidates properly due to which it was only eleven candidates who on their own became a party. This honorable judgment was passed by the High Court of Shimla in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Bachittar Singh &amp; Others Versus Suresh Kumar Sharma &amp; Others [LPA Nos.5 of 2013 with LPA No. 59 of 2020] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. The petition was filed by petitioner challenging the judgment passed by learned Single Bench of this Court, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Lahore, applicable to the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking its reversal. In both matters as per the instructions received by his counsel, later on the petitioner got employment somewhere-else, on a better footing, as such learned counsel representing him states that he is not seriously contested the petition. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and re-registered. The grievance of the petitioner taken up in Original Application was that his candidature did not figure in the result of lecturer Commerce, despite the fact that he was more qualified and he had also passed the screening test and had six years teaching experience. The legal grouse of the petitioner was that in all, the Subordinate Service Selection Board had advertised 32 posts of School Cadre Lecturer (Commerce). Out of these, 15 were in General Category. The petitioner claimed to be a post graduate in commerce and thus applied for the same. The second respondent conducted the screening test, whereas, as per the results declared in the Newspaper, his name had duly figured in the list of candidates, who had cleared the screening test. After that he was asked to appear for the interview on which he could not qualify. In a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner is that in the interview board, the Principal was from the field of economics, as such, he be not termed as subject expert and the nominee of the Director, although was from the field of commerce, but he was not designated as subject specialist. As such, due to this improper composition of the Board, the Committee could not screen him properly and did not select him.