AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Sharma, J.
CMP(T) Nos. 443 and 798 of 2010
Steps for service of private Respondent No. 4 have not been taken by the Petitioner despite last opportunity.
Heard.
Replies not to be filed. Both the applications are allowed in view of the grounds taken therein. Consequently, order dated 28th February, 2007, whereby the Original Application (O.A.) was dismissed in default for non-appearance of the applicant (Petitioner), is recalled by condoning the delay in filing the application. Consequently, the O.A. be registered as CWP(T).
Both the applications stand disposed of.
CWP(T) No. 53 of 2010
The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief vide para 7(i):
7(i)That Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be directed to appoint theapplicant in place of Respondent No. 4 as voluntary schoolteacher in Government Girls School, Barkala, and till this isdone Respondent No. 4 may be restrained from working asVoluntary Teacher in the school concerned.
In reply, on behalf of Respondents, the following stand has been vide paras 6(i), (ii) and (ix):
6(i) Para 6(i) of the application is admitted to the extent thatthe applicant is a resident of forest colony District Sirmour, H.P. However, it is denied that injustice hasbeen done to her. Facts here in below would reveal that the present application is completely devoid of any merit.
(ii) That para 6(ii) of application is denied to the extent thatthe scheme envisages appointment of experiencedpersonal though weightage is given but appointment weregiven on the basis of merit to be determined on the basisof marks as mentioned in para 6(iv).
(ix) That para 6(ix) of the application is denied. The Respondent No. 4 has been selected on the basis of hermerit and the applicant not being eligible for appointment on the basis of her qualification and overage was not selected. The applicant has not passed graduation in full subjects. She was overage as on 10.12.91, she could notbe considered for appointment as Vol. Teachers. It is submitted that the applicant and the Respondent No. 4 applied for the post of Vol. Teachers available in Sub-Division Nahan. There was only one post of Vol. Teachersanctioned/allotted for sub-Division Nahan and for this onepost, 32 candidates appeared for the interview held on10.12.1991. Respondent No. 4 having secured 70.7 marksout 100 marks was appointed as Vol. Teacher, where asthe applicant has secured only 57.1 marks out of 100 marks. Even on the basis of merit the applicant was at Sr. No. 14 in the merit list. Apart from low merit, the applicant was neither eligible being a graduate in onesubject and also overage. The applicant as on 10.12.91,was 36 years and the maximum age for employment is 35years under the Vol. Scheme, there is no provision for relaxation in age.
In view of the above reply, in case the Petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, she may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before the first Respondent/competent authority within a period of one month from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the said Respondent/competent authority shall decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner and the private Respondent No. 4, if so desired.
In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any.