Kamal Singh vs State Of H.P. And Ors

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“i) That the impugned order dated 19th January, 2019, Annexure A-15, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to offer appointment letter to the applicant for the post of TGT(Arts) for which the applicant was duly selected with all consequential benefits.

(iii) That action in accordance with law may kindly be taken against the defaulting officers/officials of respondent No.2 for such type of activities”

Name of the petitioner for the post of TGT(Arts) under the General (BPL) Category was recommended by respondent No.2- H.P. Staff Selection Commission. Pursuant to such recommendation, respondents No.1 & 3, offered appointment to the petitioner vide letter dated 08.01.2019. However, before the petitioner could join, respondent No.2 sent a revised recommendation list, stating therein that “in continuation to this office even letter No.HPSSC-C(2)52/2017, dated 06.11.2018 vide which, the recommendation list of 328 candidates was sent to your office, name of Sh. Kamal Singh, s/o Sh. Kashmir Singh category General BPL bearing Roll No.631002916 was inadvertently mentioned in the list which is hereby deleted/withdrawn from recommended candidates list and may not be given appointment.”

Accordingly, pursuant to the instructions imparted by respondent No.2, the department cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, constraining him to file the instant petition.

It is vehemently argued by Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2/H.P. Staff Selection Commission has wrongly revised the select list, as the complainant Anjana Kumari, who has now been given appointment in place of the petitioner, had in fact not appended the BPL Certificate along with the application.

In order to satisfy ourselves regarding the correctness and veracity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner, we summoned the records from the respondents. After going through the records, we find that complainant Anjana Kumari had in fact appended the General (BPL) Category Certificate alongwith the application, but she had not been awarded any marks for the same, though she was entitled to be awarded two marks for the same. The cut-off merit of the General (BPL) Category at the time when the selection of the last candidate i.e. the petitioner, was made, the cut-off marks of the General (BPL) Category vide which, the petitioner was offered appointment as a last candidate, was 57.66 marks. However, after grant of marks to Anjana Kumari, the total marks worked out to be 58.61. That apart, there is already another candidate Usha Kumari, who is above the petitioner having secured 57.8 marks, in such circumstances, obviously the petitioner can have no grievance regarding the issuance of revised merit list.

Consequently, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.