Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):
The petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Balog. The last date of receipt of application was 10th June, 2002, which was extended by 25th June, 2002. Petitioner and respondent No. 5 applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Blog. Respondent No. 5 was selected since he has secured 22 marks and the petitioner has secured only 18 marks in the interview.
2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that one of the brothers of respondent No. 5 was working as a daily wager under the I.P.H and another brother was working as regular Beldar under I.P.H According to him, the family of respondent No. 5 was not separated and in view of this, the selection committee could not award five marks to respondent No. 5 under the category of candidate belonging to unemployed family.
3. Mr. P.M Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate have supported the selection of respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Blog.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading carefully.
5. The last date of receipt of application, as mentioned hereinabove, was 25 June, 2002. Petitioner has submitted the application Annexure R-2 on 30 July, 2001 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shimla (R) for separation of family. What happened to this application, has not been placed on record. The separation of the family was required to be seen on or before 25 June, 2002.
6. Mr. Narender Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has argued that the Executive Magistrate, Junga has issued certificate on 19 July, 2002 to the effect that no member from the family of respondent No. 5 was in Government/Semi Government employment. This certificate will not advance the cause of respondent No. 5 for the simple reason that this certificate was required to be filed alongwith the application on or before 25 June, 2002. It is settled law by now that the eligibility has to be seen on the last date of receipt of application, which in the present case is 25 June, 2002. Since petitioner's two brothers were in the employment of State Government, he could not be awarded five marks by the selection committee under the category of unemployed family. The decision of the committee to award five marks to respondent No. 5 is declared illegal. Consequently, five marks are to deducted from 22 marks and in these circumstances, the respondent No. 5 will rank lower in merit vis-à-vis petitioner.
7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Blog is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier, if her name was in panel, within a period of six weeks from today. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge
July 05, 2010.
(bhupender)
Comments