The awarding of extra 15 marks by the selection committee to co-respondent for selection as Computer Operator, Development Block, Nankhari, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh under the norm “experience” was annulled and the claim made in the writ petition was accepted. This remarkable judgement was passed by Honorable Shimla High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of H.P and others [CWPOA No. 175 OF 2019] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur.
The petitioner claimed the writ of mandamus for quashing the selection, and, consequent therewith appointment of co-respondent No.3 as Computer Operator, Development Block, Nankhari, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The selection committee proceeded on the parameter of experience, hence awarded 15 marks to respondent No.3. The awarding of marks therewith by the selection committee is contended to be fallacious under the parameter of experience, render or perform duties hence relevant to the advertised posts, in any Panchayati Raj institution/ Government Office/undertaking/institution/agency.
The Honorable court opinioned that, “the afore made contention, does acquire merit, as, the performance(s) by the aspirants concerned, of duties in, the, capacity of computer operator, prior to the opposite selection and consequent therewith appointment being made, enjoined imperative performance(s) thereof, in any Panchayati Raj institution/ Government /Office /undertaking/ institution /agency, (i) and, obviously the experience certificate possessed by corespondent No.3, and, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-12, is not issued, in consonance with the afore stated apposite therewith norms encapsulated in norms, embodied in Annexure P-10. The sequel thereof is that the claim made in the writ petition becomes amenable for acceptance, and, the awarding of 15 marks by the selection committee concerned, of the respondents, under, the norm “experience”, is, annulled.”
The court was of the view that, “ the selection committee as unfolded by score sheet, becomes construable to be legally fallible, unless it, is demonstrated by cogent evidence, that despite, drawings of the afore per mensem salary by the petitioner, in the year 2008, whereat, the, recruitment process began, he under, the rules appertaining to the issuance of BPL certificate, did not, qualify to fall within the realm of BPL category.”
The high court disposed of the petition stating that, “In summa, the allotment of 15 marks to corespondent No.3 under the parameter of experience, is, annulled and set aside, and, with the afore made observations, vis-a-vis, the allotment of marks to the petitioner, under, the head “BPL norm”, be also reconsidered, and, the respondent concerned is directed to thereafter prepare and redraw, the, Seniority list, appertaining to the selection and consequent therewith appointment, as, made to the advertised post of Computer Operators.”
