Satya Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as parttime Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Neharbag, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distrcit Sirmour, H.P. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has studied upto 8th Class and belongs to Scheduled Caste. Her income is less than Rs. 9,000/- per annum. According to her, she had performed best in the interview. It is also alleged that respondent No. 5 is a well-to-do person having income of more than Rs. 50,000/- per annum. However, no material has been placed on record to support such allegation.

We had called upon the respondentsState to file reply and the respondents in the reply have stated that only two candidates, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 5 were considered for appointment to the said post. Respondents along with reply have annexed meritlist of the candidates showing what marks were awarded to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 respectively in different categories. This reads as follows:-

S.N.

Name & Address

D.O.B

Distance

Land Donation

SC/ST OBC/ BPL

Un-employed family

Interview /Viva

Total

Remarks

(10)

(5)

(3)

(5)

(7)

(30)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

1.

Sh. HiraLal, s/o Sh. Biru

9-11-90

0.KM 10

Yes 5

SC 3

U/Emp. 5

5

28

Select

2.

Smt. Satya Devi, Widow/of Sh. Amar Singh

8-02-79

0.KM 10

No

SC 3

U.Emp.

6

19

Waiting

According to the petitioner, she belongs to an employed family. The petitioner had filed a certificate issued by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat to the effect that no person from her family is in government or semigovernment employment. The case of the respondentsState is that this document was not taken into consideration since such document should be issued by the Executive Magistrate/Panchayat Secretary and the certificate in the case of the petitioner has been issued by the Pradhan. Even if we accept this certificate and award 5 marks to the petitioner for belonging to an umemployed family, even then her marks would not be higher than the marks of respondent No. 5, who also belongs to Scheduled Caste and otherwise he has been granted less marks in the interview/viva than the petitioner. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed accordingly. All pending application(s), if any, are also rejected.