Petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 as a Part Time Water Carrier. Court observed that the petitioner failed to produce required documents at the interview stage and noted that suitability was assessed by the Selection Committee, declining to act as an appellate body to re-examine candidate suitability.
Petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP (T) No. 8975/2008 Reserved on : 9.12.2010 Decided on:18.12. 2010
_____________________________________________ Aruna Kumari. …Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 4.
None for respondent No.5
Ms. Bhawna Dutta, Advocate for respondent No.6.
Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) .
Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jathia Devi. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the selection of respondent No.6 is in contravention to the scheme framed by the respondent-State for filling up the posts of Part Time Water Carrier. The suitability of the petitioner and respondent No.6 has been gone into by the duly constituted Selection Committee.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2
Respondent No.6 has secured 19 marks. According to the averments made in the reply, petitioner has not produced documents/certificates before the Selection Committee.
(Rajiv Sharma), Judge
18.12. 2010 awasthi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the selection of the respondent was in contravention of the recruitment scheme and whether lack of local documentation at the time of interview is fatal to the petitioner's case.
Whether this court will sit in appeal over a selection made by a duly constituted Selection Committee without re-examining the suitability of candidates.
Whether the petitioner belonged to the village where the school was situated as required by the scheme.
Aruna Kumari
State of Himachal Pradesh
Respondent No.6
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
