Vijay Kumar vs State Of H.P And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner challenges the order dated 24.05.2017, vide which respondent No.5 was selected and appointed as Part-Time Worker in Patwar Circle, Bhatanwali, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour.

The ground taken by the petitioner for challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 is that the family of the petitioner had donated land to Patwar Circle, for which the selection process was undertaken by the respondents. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled for marks on account of donation of land for construction of building of the aforesaid patwar circle, whereas, the respondents did not award any marks to him under this head.

Respondents No.1 to 4 in their reply have stated that neither the petitioner nor his father or grandfather had donated any land to the Revenue Department for construction of the building of patwar circle. The respondents have further submitted that it was one Sh. Khem Raj S/o Sh. Bhola Ram, who had donated his land to the Revenue Department for construction of the building of patwar circle, vide mutation No.929, dated 04.01.1985, measuring 0-5 Bigha in Village Bhatanwali, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour.

Admittedly, the petitioner is not the son of Sh. Khem Raj, who had donated his land to the Revenue Department. The petitioner is son of Sh. Krishna Nand S/o Sh. Geeta Ram. Thus, he has no right or interest to claim the benefit of marks under the heading 'Donation of Land to Building of Patwar Circle’. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that Sh. Khem Raj was the paternal Uncle of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for marks under the heading ‘Donation of Land to Building of Patwar Circle’, is mis-placed. It will be only the legal heirs of Sh. Khem Raj, who will be entitled for the benefit of donation of land by him and not the petitioner. More so in light of pedigree table of the petitioner drawn by the respondents in their reply. The pedigree table, which is not disputed by the petitioner, shows (i) him to be great grandson of one Chajju [Vijay Kumar (petitioner) S/o Krishna Nand S/o Geeta Ram S/o Chajju] and (ii) Khem Raj to be grandson of Chajju (Khem Raj S/o Bhola Ram S/o Chajju). It is also not the case of the petitioner that his so called paternal uncle Sh. Khem Raj by using some legal method in form of affidavit etc., had consented for giving marks to his nephew (petitioner) for the land donated by him (Khem Raj). Whether such consent could have been acted upon is an entirely different issue.

Next ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that only one mark was awarded to him during interview, whereas, he should have been granted at least two marks out of total 5 marks in ‘Viva Voce’. There is no basis for such contention in the pleadings. No allegations of malafide or discrimination in award of marks in Viva Voce have been made by the petitioner. Interviews were conducted by the duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate on record that marks were not properly awarded by the Committee. No illegality in award of marks was pointed out. Just because the petitioner remained unsuccessful in the viva-voce would not mean that viva-voce proceedings were conducted illegally. No other point was urged.

For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.