Writ of Mandamus- Against extra marks awarded by Selection Committee in State: High Court of Shimla
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.”
 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLACWPOA No. 1719Reserved on: 9.3.2021Decided on : 10.03.2021 Rajesh Kumar Petitioner. VersusState of H.P and others Respondents.Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur Judge.Whether approved for reporting 1 Yes. For the petitioner:Mr. P.P Chauhan Advocate. For the respondents:Mr. Ashwani Sharma Mr. NarenderGuleria and Mr. Hemant Vaid Addl.A.Gs with Mr. Vikrant Chandel Dy.A.Gfor respondents No. 2. Mr. M.L Sharma Advocate forrespondent No.3. Sureshwar Thakur Judge The writ petitioner claims the making of amandamus upon the respondents for quashing the selection and consequent therewith appointment of co respondentNo.3 as Computer Operator Development Block Nankhari District Shimla Himachal Pradesh. 2.The gravamen of the afore striving becomesembedded in the selection committee proceeding to on theparameter of experience hence award 15 marks to co 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP respondent No.3. The apposite abstract of the score sheetmaking the afore reflections is appended with the instant writpetition as Annexure P 11. The validity of awarding of marksqua therewith by the selection committee is contended to befallacious as co respondent No.3 did not in tandem with themaximum of 15 marks allocable to her under the parameter ofexperience render or perform duties hence relevant to theadvertised posts in any Panchayati Raj institution GovernmentOffice undertaking institution agency.3.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 appositeselection and consequent therewith appointment being made enjoined imperative performance(s) thereof in any PanchayatiRaj institution Government Office undertaking institution agency encapsulated in norms embodied inAnnexure P 10. The sequel thereof is that the claim made in thewrit petition becomes amenable for acceptance and the…2… Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP awarding of 15 marks by the selection committee concerned of the respondents under the norm “experience” is annulled.4.Be that as it may since it is averred on affidavit byco respondent No.3 that in the relevant year in as much as2008 and whereat the relevant recruitment hence began rather thereatwith the petitioner rendering work as acomputer Teacher in Government School Nankhari DistrictShimla H.P and his drawing per mensem salary of Rs.2760 thereupon the awarding of 5 marks to him under BPL norm hence by the selection committee as unfolded by score sheet Annexure P 11 becomes also construable to be legally fallible unless it is demonstrated by cogent evidence that despite drawing(s) of the afore per mensem salary by the petitioner inthe year 2008 whereat the recruitment process began heunder the rules appertaining to the issuance of BPL certificate did not qualify to fall within the realm of BPL category.5.In summa the allotment of 15 marks to co respondent No.3 under the parameter of experience is annulled and set aside and with the aforemade observations vis a vis the allotment of marks to the petitioner under thehead “BPL norm” be also reconsidered and the respondent…3… Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP concerned is directed to thereafter prepare and redraw the Seniority list appertaining to the selection and consequenttherewith appointment as made to the advertised post ofComputer Operator(s).In view of the above the present petitionstands disposed of alongwith all pending applications. Judge. 10 th March 2021 (priti)…4… 