Vijendera Singh And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner has assailed the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Tambroo under Education Block, Chadhiar, District Kangra, HP.

Respondent No. 4-Block Primary Education Officer, Chadhiar (Kangra) issued a notification inviting applications for filling-up the posts of Primary Assistant Teachers on contract basis in various schools. One such post was meant for Government Primary School, Tambroo. The eligible candidates could send their applications in terms of the notification latest by 12.7.2005. The selection criteria for contractual engagement of Primary Assistant Teachers, inter-alia, provided giving of five marks to the candidates in possession of JBT, B.Ed., C&V (except Music and Craft) degrees. Ten marks in the selection criteria were allocated for candidates belonging to unemployed family. 21 candidates including the petitioners and respondent No. 6 applied for the post in question. They were interviewed on 26.7.2005. Respondent No. 6 was selected and appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Tambroo vide order dated 1.8.2005.

The selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Tambroo has been assailed by the petitioner primarily on two grounds:-

(i) That respondent No. 6 was not in possession of B.Ed. degree at the time of interview for the post in question. Therefore, she had been wrongly awarded five marks for the B.Ed. degree.

(ii) That brother and sister of respondent No. 6 were in employment, therefore, ten marks admissible to candidates belonging to unemployed families could not have been awarded to her.

In reply to the petition, respondent No. 6 has submitted that she had appeared for the B.Ed. examination in the month of April 2005. On 15.7.2005 respondent No. 6 had applied for confidential result of her B.Ed. annual examination held in April 2005. The Controller of Examination, H.P. University vide letter dated 15.7.2005 had sent her confidential result of B.Ed. examination to respondent No. 3 as per rules and in terms of said result respondent No. 6 had passed the B.Ed. Examination. The interview for the post in question was conducted on 26.7.2005. It was on the basis of this letter issued by the Controller of Examination, H.P. University that respondent No. 6 was given five marks in the interview. This factual assertion made by respondent No. 6 in her reply has not been refuted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of the notification issued by respondent No. 4 the testimonials alongwith the application ought to have been furnished by the eligible candidates up to 12. 7.2005. However, the condition No. 6 of the notification also records that the applicants should bring all their certificates at the time of interview. It is not disputed that respondent No. 6 was in possession of her B.Ed. annual examination result on the date of interview i.e. 26.7.2005. In respect of respondent No. 6’s sister and brother being in employment at the time of her selection as Primary Assistant Teacher, it has been submitted by the respondents-State that they were employed on part time contract basis for a specific period i.e. one year. Whether part time contract employment of respondent No. 6’s sister and brother, that too for a specific limited period of one year, can dis-entitle respondent No. 6 from being awarded ten marks admissible to the candidates belonging to unemployed families, is a debatable question. The appointment of respondent No. 6 was made on 1.8.2005. Learned Deputy Advocate General during hearing of the case has placed on record an office order dated 20.8.2020 to the effect that respondent No. 6 stands regularized on the said post vide order dated 20.8.2020. Respondent No. 6 has now completed around seventeen years on the post in question. Therefore, for the forgoing reasons and in the peculiar facts of the case, the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 does not call for any interference.

With the above observations, the petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.