Due to this improper composition of the Board, the Committee could not screen candidates properly due to which it was only eleven candidates who on their own became a party. This honorable judgment was passed by the High Court of Shimla in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Bachittar Singh & Others Versus Suresh Kumar Sharma & Others [LPA Nos.5 of 2013 with LPA No. 59 of 2020] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
The petition was filed by petitioner challenging the judgment passed by learned Single Bench of this Court, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Lahore, applicable to the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking its reversal. In both matters as per the instructions received by his counsel, later on the petitioner got employment somewhere-else, on a better footing, as such learned counsel representing him states that he is not seriously contested the petition. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and re-registered. The grievance of the petitioner taken up in Original Application was that his candidature did not figure in the result of lecturer Commerce, despite the fact that he was more qualified and he had also passed the screening test and had six years teaching experience. The legal grouse of the petitioner was that in all, the Subordinate Service Selection Board had advertised 32 posts of School Cadre Lecturer (Commerce). Out of these, 15 were in General Category.
The petitioner claimed to be a post graduate in commerce and thus applied for the same. The second respondent conducted the screening test, whereas, as per the results declared in the Newspaper, his name had duly figured in the list of candidates, who had cleared the screening test. After that he was asked to appear for the interview on which he could not qualify. In a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner is that in the interview board, the Principal was from the field of economics, as such, he be not termed as subject expert and the nominee of the Director, although was from the field of commerce, but he was not designated as subject specialist. As such, due to this improper composition of the Board, the Committee could not screen him properly and did not select him.
The petition was disposed of stating that, “This is otherwise ignoring the fact that the advertisement of selected candidates, wherein 32 names were mentioned, whereas the petitioner was concerned only with the batch in which subject expert did not participate, more particularly his own selection and that is why he has arraigned them as party. Out of the total selected candidates, it was only eleven candidates who on their own became party. We are of the considered opinion that the attention of the learned Single judge was not drawn correctly to the facts.”