Brij Bhushan vs State of H.P. and Others

Kuldip Singh, J.—The Petitioner has prayed that the appointment of Respondent No. 5 in Govt. Middle School, Gasour, may be held illegal and, therefore, same be quashed and set-aside with further prayer that Respondents may be directed to give appointment to the Petitioner against the post of PET with all consequential benefits from the date of appointment of Respondent No. 5.

The case of the Petitioner is that the interview was conducted on 22.9.2006 for the post of DPE in Govt. Middle School, Gasour, under Complex GSSS Jukhala, District Bilaspur. The Petitioner has acquired Master and Bachelor Degrees in physical education and has brilliant sports career. He applied for the said post. It appears that there were other candidates also who appeared in the interview before the Committee constituted for the purpose. The Respondent No. 5 was selected but not the Petitioner even though the Petitioner was more meritorious in comparison to Respondent No. 5. 10 marks were left to the discretion of President of PTA who was a business man and had no knowledge of sports. The Petitioner was having Master''s degree for which 5 marks were kept. The Petitioner had requisite experience.

The PTA Committee had deliberately kept the Petitioner one mark behind the Respondent No. 5, who did not possess the Master degree. The Petitioner believed that the PTA Committee had not allocated the marks as per criteria for selection. The Petitioner further believed that he was not allocated 5 marks for his experience. On these grounds, the petition was filed.

The petition was contested by Respondent No. 1 by filing reply. It has been stated that in the interview Petitioner had secured 30 marks whereas the selected candidate Respondent No. 5 Mukesh Kumar had secured 31 marks as per Annexure A-1 merit list annexed by the Petitioner. The interviews were held for the post of PET and not for the post of DPE. The appointment has been made as per criteria on the basis of merit. The experience certificate of the Petitioner was not counter-signed by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education which was mandatory condition for its applicability, hence the marks of experience were not given to the Petitioner. The selection was fair and the prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition.

The Respondent No. 2 has filed separate reply. It has been stated that inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Committee which decided against the Respondent No. 5, who went in appeal and the appellate authority, Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, allowed the appeal and the services of Respondent No. 5 were restored. The Petitioner has not challenged the order dated 5.3.2010. The selection has been made on merits.

The Respondent No. 3 has filed separate reply in which it has been denied that Petitioner was more meritorious than Respondent No. 5. The Respondent No. 5 has been selected as per criteria laid down. The Respondent No. 5 has been selected on merits. The marks were allocated as per criteria fixed.

The Respondent No. 4 has taken more or less the same stand as taken by Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 5 has also contested the petition by filing the reply and has stated that he has been selected on merits, he was more meritorious than the Petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. On behalf of the Petitioner, it has been submitted that the Petitioner has not been wrongly given the marks of experience. He was given only one mark by expert. It has been submitted that Petitioner is more meritorious and it does not sound the reasoning that Petitioner who has Master Degree in physical education would get only one mark as shown in Annexure A-1 and given by the subject expert in comparison to Respondent No. 5 who is having Bachelor degree in physical education and has got 10 marks for the same purpose.

The Respondent No. 3 expert has filed the reply and has specifically stated that the selection was made on the basis of merit. It is not possible for this Court to substitute for the subject expert who allocated the marks to the candidates. There are no allegations of malafides against Respondent No. 3 nor there is any other material on record to show that under no circumstance the Petitioner could be given one mark by the subject expert and Respondent No. 5 ten marks. In absence of such material it cannot be said that the subject expert has wrongly given ten marks to Respondent No. 5 and one mark to Petitioner.

In Annexure A-1 it has been stated that five marks are allocated for experience. It is also clear from Annexure A-1 that experience certificate must be counter-signed by the Deputy Director Elementary Education. The Respondent No. 1 has taken the stand that experience certificate of the Petitioner was not counter-signed by the Deputy Director Elementary Education, therefore, his experience could not be counted while allocating the marks. It is not the stand of the Petitioner that in fact the experience certificate of Petitioner was counter-signed by the Deputy Director Elementary Education and even then no marks were illegally allocated to him for experience. Thus, seen from any angle, there is no merit in the petition.

No other point was urged.

The result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.