Nisha Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, Judge

Essential facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were interviewed for filling up the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Sanglehri, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. The interviews were held on 15.02.2012. The Selection Committee has recommended the name of respondent No. 5 for the post of Part Time Water Carrier. The selection process was commenced on the basis of Recruitment Scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers, notified on 20th August, 2012. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the selection of respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier is illegal. According to him, his client has not been given five marks for donating land for School by her father-in-law. He also contended that his client was entitled to three marks for belonging to BPL family. He lastly contended that respondent No. 5 has been given disproportionately more marks at the time of interview.

Mr. Virender Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the selection of respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

Petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-4, i.e., copy of Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 to substantiate that her father-in-law has donated land to the Education Department. According to Annexure R-1, placed on record by the respondent-State, in case the families have donated land for school, the certificate is required from the Deputy Director of Education, duly countersigned by the Tehsildar. Annexure P-4, i.e., copy of Jamabandi is signed by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education and countersigned by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar. However, the copy which the petitioner has placed before the Selection Committee, i.e., Annexure R-2, the same is neither signed by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education and countersigned by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar. Thus, the petitioner has failed to submit the certificate in accordance with Annexure R-1. According to the reply, the petitioner was also afforded an opportunity to do so, but she could not produce the certificate. Petitioner has only submitted the photo copy of the Jamabandi issued by the Patwari Halqua. It is duly established that the petitioner has not filed the copy of Jamabandi in accordance with law and has managed to get it signed and countersigned by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education and Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar at a subsequent stage. In view of this, there is no illegality in the action of the Selection Committee not awarding her five marks. Petitioner has placed on record the copy of B.P.L. certificate. The B.P.L. certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the S.D.M. Sadar, Bilaspur on 29th February, 2012 vide Annexure R-5/5. In B.P.L. certificate placed at page-32 of the paper-book, only village Manjhot has been mentioned. However in the copy supplied alongwith application, Village Sangleri has also been added within brackets. Village Manjhot and Sangleri are separate revenue villages. The distance between Manjhot and Sanglehri is about 2-3 Kms. The petitioner has manipulated the B.P.L. certificate. The S.D.M. Sadar, Bilaspur has taken into consideration the total income of the petitioner''s family while rejecting the B.P.L. certificate. The order, dated 29.02.2012, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. is reasoned and self speaking.

The Scheme has been framed to help the poorest of poor to enable them to earn livelihood. The post of Part Time Water Carrier is required to be filled up from the lowest strata of the society and not from the members of the affluent family. In the case in hand, according to the B.P.L. certificate, the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner, i.e., Sh. Mansha Ram, has also not been included in family.

Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the respondent No. 5 has been given disproportionately higher marks in the interview. In the absence of specific proven malafides against the members of the selection committee, this Court will not substitute its judgment for the wisdom of the selection committee. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.