Point of Law: Impugned order is perused in its entirety it reveals that though authorities in helm of affairs, were aware of mistake committed by them but since Chairman/Sub Divisional Magistrate of selection committee stood transferred, mistake could not be rectified.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 14.7.2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner pursuant to direction contained in order 31.3.2015 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in CWP N. 5480 of 2012 titled Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, came to be rejected, petitioner approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 3461 of 2015, which now account of its abolishment stands transferred to this court and reregistered as such, praying therein for following main reliefs:

“a) Qua the impugned order A-18 being arbitrary, malafide and illegal;

b) Direct the respondents to give marks of qualifications to the applicant and thereafter hold him selected and issue appointment letter w.e.f. 12.03.2012, i.e. date of declaration of results with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary alongwith interest thereon @ 18% pa.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that pursuant to notice inviting application dated 16.6.2011, issued by Executive Office, Panchayat Samiti, Development Block Theog for the post of Panchayat Sahayak, the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates applied and being eligible was called for interview. Though after conclusion of interview, merit list was drawn and final merit list was displayed on notice board of Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, whereas, allegedly, the petitioner was shown to be selected against the post but after pasting the notice on notice board on 12.3.2012, on the next day i.e. 13.3.2012, it was removed and no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner.

3. On enquiry, it transpired that instead of petitioner, respondent No. 7-Rajni was declared to be successful but even she was not issued appointment letter because, representation was filed by the petitioner to the authority concerned, with regard to wrong distribution of marks. Since the petitioner despite being B.C.A. was not awarded marks for the said qualification, he was shown to have secured 46.30 in total and Rajni was shown to have secured 51.10 marks. After having received representation of the petitioner, respondents realized their mistake and found that 10.24 marks ought to have been awarded to the petitioner for qualification of B.C.A.. Had aforesaid marks been awarded to the petitioner, his total would have been more than 51.10, which was otherwise secured by respondent No.7 Rajni. Petitioner after having noticed mistake committed by respondents while preparing result, requested the respondents to review the result, but interestingly, no steps were taken. Finally, vide communication dated 17.3.2012, Director Panchayati Raj Himachal Pradesh directed Block Development Officer Development Block Theog re-look into selection process (Annexure P-10). While issuing direction to the Block Development Officer, Director, Panchayati Raj specifically asked aforesaid authority to award marks to the petitioner for B.C.A. qualification but interestingly, no decision was taken by the Block Development Officer, Theog. Vide communication dated 30.5.2012, District Panchayat Officer Shimla again reminded Block Development Officer Theog to apprise about action taken on the complaint made by the petitioner. Vide aforesaid communication District Panchayat Officer specifically asked Block Development Officer Theog why till date, appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioner. Since, despite there being repeated instructions from higher authorities, Block Development Officer failed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner despite his being at Sr. No.1 in merit list, petitioner was compelled to approach this court by way of CWP No. 5480 of 2012 (Annexure A- 17), which came to be disposed of by this Court, with a direction to Deputy Commissioner, Shimla to decide the representation having been made by petitioner by passing a speaking order within four weeks.