Shyam Singh vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Five posts of Lecturer (College Cadre), in the subject of Chemistry, were advertised by Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Respondent No. 3 herein. All the posts were reserved for disabled persons, three for visually disabled persons and two for deaf and dumb. Petitioner applied against the posts reserved for visually disabled persons. He fell in that category. Also, he fulfills the requisite educational qualifications. One of the candidates, who suffered from orthopaedic disability, also applied. Though no post was reserved for a candidate of orthopaedic disability, yet the candidature of such candidate was considered. Not only that, he was called for interview also. When the mistake was realized, the entire process of selection was cancelled.

Petitioner felt aggrieved by the process of cancellation and filed writ petition in this Court, which was registered as CWP No. 3654 of 2010. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24th August, 2010, with a direction to finalize the selection, in terms of selection process for visually challenged persons, on the basis of interview held on 30th October, 2009. Respondent No. 3 in accordance with the aforesaid direction of this Court, has now declared the result. The result has been communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 14th April, 2010, copy Annexure P-8. According to this communication, Petitioner having not secured the minimum prescribed marks in the interview has not been selected.

Petitioner has now filed the present petition, seeking a direction to Respondent No. 3 to recommend his name to Respondents No. 1 and 2 for appointing him as Lecturer(College Cadre) in Chemistry subject. His contention is that no minimum pass marks having been prescribed for interview/viva-voce test, Respondent No. 3 was not justified in showing that the Petitioner had not been selected, because of his not securing minimum prescribed marks in interview.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 3 as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record.

Even though in the advertisement, copy Annexure P-4, there is no reference that the candidate shall have to secure some minimum �3� prescribed percentage of marks in interview for being recommended to the Government for appointment as Lecturer, yet Respondent No. 3 has placed on record its rules of business. As per these rules, which are available as Annexure R-3/2, as amended vide corrigendum dated 16.7.2007, forming part of Annexure R-3/2, a candidate, who is subjected to interview only and not a screening test, has to secure 35% marks in case he belongs to any of the reserved categories. Though the Petitioner belongs to a reserved category, his total score, as per statement of result, which has been shown to the Court, is only 30 out of 100. These rules of business of Respondent No. 3 were in place even before the process of selection was started.

In view of above stated position, there is no merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.