Allowed

Surjit Singh v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC24 May 2013LPA/423/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the appointment of respondent No.5. It held that the appointing authority could not depart from notified selection norms or allot additional marks for past experience without explicit provision. The Gram Panchayat was directed to appoint the appellant who secured higher marks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of the Single Judge was quashed; writ petition made absolute; appointment of respondent No.5 quashed; direction issued to appoint appellant.

Surjit Singh Vs State — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

LPA No. 423 of 2012.

¶3

Decided on: 24^th May, 2013.

¶4

Surjit Singh. … Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and ors. … Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the Appellant: Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate.

¶9

For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Rattan, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶10

Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶11

¶12

Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. (Oral)

¶13

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶14

Admit. As short question is involved, hearing is proceeded forthwith by consent. Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice for final disposal.

¶15

This appeal takes exception to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11^th May, 2012 in CWP No. 984 of 2011. By that judgment, writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the selection process and in particular, the appointment of respondent No.5 on the ground that respondent No.5 has been favoured by the Gram Panchayat being close relation of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat,

¶16

came to be dismissed. The selection process was

¶17

¶18

commenced to appoint Panchayat Sahayak in Gram Panchayat, Goel Jamala pursuant to the notification dated 26^th June, 1999. The conditions specified in the said notification regarding eligibility of the candidates are as follows:

¶19

“(i) The candidate should have matric as minimum education qualification. (ii) That candidate should hail from the same Gram Panchayt.

¶20

(iii) Panchayat should appoint knowledgeable and mature individuals for this task who are keen to serve the area rather than looking at this work merely as a job opportunity. (iv) The minimum age limit will be 18 years. (v) Such persons may be appointed as Gram Panchayat Sahayaks, who can spare their time for working in the Panchayats.”

¶21

After the selection process had commenced, the Gram Panchayat made query with the Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Himachal Pradesh about the eligibility criteria and in particular of allotting marks to the candidates. In response to the said query, the Director informed the Gram Panchayat vide communication dated 17^th February, 2011 that besides the marks to be allotted in the manner provided in the said communication, it will be open to the Gram Panchayat to conduct interview of the candidates and allot marks for that purpose to the concerned candidate depending upon the performance during the viva voce test. Consequent thereto, the Gram Panchayat initially allotted marks to the respective candidates in terms of the criteria specified in the communication dated 17^th February, 2011. As per that criteria, the appellant secured 19.19 marks,

¶22

¶23

whereas respondent No.5 admittedly secured only 15.25 marks. However, the Gram Panchayat, relying on the condition in clause (iii) specified in the notification dated 26^th June, 1999, decided to allot five additional marks to respondent No.5 on the ground that he had working experience, whilst serving in the Gram Panchayat for almost 11 years as Panchayat Sahayak. As a result of allocation of this five additional marks to respondent No.5, the aggregate marks of respondent No.5 became 20.25 and being in excess of the marks secured by the appellant i.e. 19.19, respondent No.5 was preferred and appointed by the Gram Panchayat.

¶24

In this backdrop, the appellant filed writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.5 principally on the ground that the allocation of additional five marks to respondent No.5 by the Gram Panchayat was without any basis, muchless authority of law. Inasmuch as, neither the notification dated 26^th June, 1999 nor the clarificatory note sent by the Director of Panchayati Raj Department dated 17^th February, 2011 predicate allotting “five additional marks” towards the experience of the candidate. This challenge, however, did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, instead, accepted the stand taken by respondent No.5 that there was nothing wrong in allotting five additional marks in recognition of his past experience of almost 11 years as Panchayat Sahayak in the same Gram Panchayat.

¶25

¶26

In the present appeal, we do not deem it necessary to examine the grievance made by the appellant that respondent No.5 was favoured at the behest of the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat being his close relation. For, in our opinion, the appeal ought to succeed on the first principle that once the selection process is commenced, it is not open to the Appointing Authority to depart from the norms already notified. The norms as notified can be traced only to the notification dated 26^th June, 1999. Even, if we were to take into account the clarification issued in the communication sent by the Director, Panchayati Raj Department dated 17^th February, 2011, we have no hesitation in taking the view that there is no indication in any of these documents to even remotely suggest that “five additional marks” can be allotted by the Gram Panchayat towards experience of the candidate. It is not necessary for us to examine as to whether respondent No.5 in fact possessed 11 years experience as Panchayat Sahayak. Suffice it to note that as per the methodology for allocation of marks already notified, the respective candidates were allotted marks. The appellant secured 19.19 marks, whereas respondent No.5 secured only 15.25 marks on that basis.

¶27

Assuming that respondents could rely on the additional aspect noted in the communication dated 17^th February, 2011. That, at best, would suggest that the Gram Panchayat is competent to conduct viva voce test and allot suitable marks to the candidates for that purpose. If the Gram Panchayat wanted to resort to that mechanism ought

¶28

¶29

to have notified it well in advance before the commencement of the selection process. In any case, the additional five marks given to the respondent No.5 are admittedly not in respect of viva voce test conducted by the Gram Panchayat but purely because of the working experience of respondent No.5 - of 11 years as Panchayat Sahayak in the same Gram Panchayat.

¶30

As aforesaid, neither the notification dated 26^th June, 1999 nor the communication dated 17^th February, 2011 provide for allocation of five marks towards the experience of the candidate. Further, condition No. (iii) specified in the notification dated 26^th June, 1999 at best would permit the Gram Panchayat to “prefer” the candidate amongst the two candidates similarly placed, who had secured equal marks - keeping in mind the working experience of the candidate, who should be preferred. Condition No. (iii) does not authorize the Gram Panchayat to give additional marks for the working experience of the candidate. Thus understood, five marks allotted by the Gram Panchayat to respondent No.5 to say the least is without any authority of law and the same will have to be ignored as effaced from the record in terms of this judgment. In that case, the appellant ought to succeed having secured higher marks than respondent No.5, i.e. 19.19 marks as against 15.25 marks secured by respondent No.5.

¶31

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. Instead, the writ petition is made absolute. As a result whereof, the

¶32

¶33

appointment of respondent No.5 is quashed and set aside and Gram Panchayat is directed to forthwith appoint the appellant against the advertised post having secured higher marks than respondent No.5 in the selection process, subject, however, to fulfilling other elgibility requirements, if any.

¶34

The appeal succeeds on the above terms with no order as to costs. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶35

(A.M. Khanwilkar), Chief Justice.

¶36

24^th May, 2013. (Kuldip Singh), (tr/vs) Judge.

Surjit Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant Kumar Vs Hp University

Shanti Swaroop Vs State

Gopal Singh at 1PM Vs State

Hp State Cooperative Wool Procurement Vs Ms Summer India

Ms Kamdhenu Feeds Vs Ms Summer India

Ganvi Panervas Sangharsh Samiti Vs State