Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 320 (HP)

MEENA v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-12-03

BAKHSHISH KAUR, D.S.AMIST

body2004
JUDGEMENT Mrs. Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Retd.), Chairman: - The order disposes of two I original applications (O.A). No. 693 of 2004 and O.A. No 1602 of 2002) as the I points of law and facts involved therein are similar. The facts in brief are taken from Original Application No. 693 of 2002. O.A. 693 of 2002: 2. Smt. Meena widow of Sh. Babu Ram has assailed the selection of Smt. I Krishna Devi, respondent No.4, as a part time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary I School, Sauri Gujran and claimed the following reliefs:- "1. That the impugned order Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed. 3. That respondent No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to make the I appointment of Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Sauri Gujran after adopting proper and legal procedure as envisaged in all the various guidelines issued by this respondent government. 4. That the respondents may be directed to give preference to the applicant for appointment of Water carrier in Government Primary School, Sauri Gujan taking into consideration her circumstances. 4 Any other order as may deem fit and proper may kindly be issued. 5. The respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire records and the guidelines as prayed for in the previous paragraphs. Facts leading to O.A. 1602/2002: 6. Smt. Bholan Devi daughter of Sh. Santokh Singh, has also challenged the appointment of Smt. Krishna Devi, respondent No.5, as a part time Water Carrier on the grounds that her father Had gifted five biswas of land in favour of the education department for the construction of the school. He was given assurance that one family member of Sh. Santokh Singh will be appointed in the School as per educational qualification, on priority basis vide resolution Annexure A-1 and (English transliteration Annexure A-2) another resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Panjehra, Teh. Nalagarh, Distt. Solan Annexure A-3/Annexure, A-4. 7. The consistent stand taken up by the respondents No.1 to 3 is that the name of respondent Krishna Devi was recommended for appointment as a Part Time Water Carrier on compassionate ground under clause 12 of the scheme formulated by the State notified by the Government vide notification No. EDN-C-B (2)-7/95 dated 27.7.21001. All the recommendations for appointment of Water Carrier are being made under the policy, therefore, the original applications are liable to be dismissed. 8. All the recommendations for appointment of Water Carrier are being made under the policy, therefore, the original applications are liable to be dismissed. 8. Respondents No.4, private respondent, has also resisted the claim of the applicant and pleaded inter alia, that she fulfils the criteria for selection as part time water carrier. She is a widow having four minor children. She has no source of income. She is permanent resident of same Gram Panchayat and her house is situated near the school . 9. We have heard Ms. Archana Dutt and Mr. Virender Verma learned counsel for applications Meena and Bholan Devi and Sh.Chirag B. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sh. Rakesh Thakur, counsel for Krishna Devi respondent 7 The Government of Himachal! Pradesh has formulated recruitment scheme known as "Ansh Kaleen Jalvahak Yojna 2001" (hereinafter referred to as scheme) for the appointment of Part Tin... Water Carrier in the schools of the Educational Department notified on July 27, 2001. The objectives of the scheme are asunder:- (a) To provide part time water carrier in Himachal! Pradesh Govt. Schools against vacancies or against specifically created posts (b) To empower the PRIs further by decentralizing and involving PRI in the effective running of primary school." (c) To provide an opportunity for the unemployed youth of H.P. to work in Govt. Primary Schools of their villages located in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat/ Urban Local Bodies and earn a decent honorarium as well. 8. Clause 12 of the Scheme relates to the appointment on compassionate ground. It reads as under: - "12. Compassionate Ground Appointment. The Govt. will have the power to appoint any candidate as Part Time Water Carrier on compassionate ground without following the selection process if the candidates are widow, women deserted by husband, or otherwise destitute, handicapped persons and if the candidate falls below poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time." 9. Under the Scheme the mode of appointment is that the appointment, shall be made by selection committee to be constituted by the Govt. in the Education Department as notified from time to time. Eligibility criteria is also laid down The prospective candidates appear for interview before the selection committee constituted by the State and to judge the suitability of the candidates purely on merit. in the Education Department as notified from time to time. Eligibility criteria is also laid down The prospective candidates appear for interview before the selection committee constituted by the State and to judge the suitability of the candidates purely on merit. The break up of the marks to be awarded to the candidates is also provided in the Scheme under Clause-7. 10 In the case in hand the respondent No.4 has been appointed on compassionate ground under Clause-12 which empowers the government to appoint any candidate without following selection process If the candidates are widow, y women deserted by husbands or otherwise destitute, handicapped persons and if the candidate falls below poverty line as defined by the Rural Development from lime to time. 10. The irony of fate is that Smt. Meena, applicant and Smt. Krishan Devi, respondent, No.4 both are widows. They belong to IRDP Family. They have got no source of income. Just-as respondent No.4 has been considered for appointment on passionate ground under Clause-12& the applicant could also be considered from the same appointment on the same analogy but once the respondent No.4 has been appointed under Clause-12 of the policy formulated by the State that the Tribunal can not sit as an appellate court and quash the selection by itself I scrutinizing comparative merits of the candidates as observed in oft quoted authority I reported as "Durga Devi and another vs. State of HP. and others, AIR 1997 SC. I 2618". Though in Durga Devis case supra) it has been observed that the decisions of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds such as illegality of patent material irregularity in the constitution of committee or proved malafide affecting the selection etc. 11. The thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Virender Verma, learned counsel for the appellant Bholan Devi is mainly on the point of gifting of land by Sh. Santokh Singh, father of Bholan Devi. Five biswas of land was gifted vide gift deed No. 878 dated 25.6.1997 in respect of the land comprised in K/K No. 75 min 76 min duly entered in jamabandi for the year 1992-93 falling under the jurisdiction for Gram Panchayat, Panjehra. Copy of gift deed is Annexure A-5. She along with other candidates had appeared in for interview on January 23, 1999 in the office of Block Priminary Education Officer. Copy of gift deed is Annexure A-5. She along with other candidates had appeared in for interview on January 23, 1999 in the office of Block Priminary Education Officer. She was assured appointment as a Part time Water Carrier but she was not given chance to serve and the name of rival respondent appears to have been recommended by the respondent No.2 under political pressure. The applicant also belongs to IRDP family and scheduled caste category, therefore, she fulfils the requirement for appointment. 12. Mr Verma, further contended that the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Panjehra had right to appoint Water Carrier in the school in question because it falls within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Panjehra whereas Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Nawan Grown has been direction to appoint Water Carrier in the school. He had no right to appoint any person. Even the applicant belongs to the same village where the school is situated at a distance of 60 meters whereas respondent Krishna belongs to village Hattre which is at a distance of more than 2 Kilometers. 13. Smt. Krishna Devi, respondent in her reply specifically averred that the applicant Bholan Devi is not resident of Gram Panchayat, Bedi Tehsil Nalagarh, she was married in Punjab where she lives with her husband, therefore, she was not bonafide Himachal because of her marriage in Punjab. The distance between her (respondent No.5) house and the school is 800 metres. The applicant does not belong to IRDP family. Her husband is working in Punjab. He adult son is semi skilled and had worked as painter earning more than Rs. 200/- per day. Her father owns 22 bighas of land in villages Palle Bhonkha and Bhairchha, Teh. Nalagarh. 14. Adverting to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3, it is admitted that Govt. Primary School was proposed to be opened in Village Saunti and land for the purpose was gifted by Sh. Sankokh Singh father of the applicant but the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat was never authorized by the Education Department to give assurance to the land donor to provide any type of employment to the member of his family nor he had got any power to enter into agreement on the part of Education Department. Sankokh Singh father of the applicant but the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat was never authorized by the Education Department to give assurance to the land donor to provide any type of employment to the member of his family nor he had got any power to enter into agreement on the part of Education Department. The resolution dated July 11, 2002 Annexure A-1 has been signed by Mehar Chand who is not Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Nawan Grown as is evident from Annexure A-1. 15. The respondent No.4 i.e. Pradhan Gram Panchat has also reiterated the stand taken by respondent No.1 to 3 by asserting that he had acted according to the I order of the government. Respondent Smt. Krishna Devi was appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier under Clause-12 of the Policy. 16. It is pertinent to note that respondent Krishna Devi in reply has specifically averred in Para 6(ii) that the applicant was married in Punjab where she lives with her husband and she is not a Bonafide Himachal. The applicant had cared I not to rebut this averment by way of filing rejoinder. She has also tried to withhold material fact regarding her correct address. In the application she has described herself as daughter of Sh. Santokh Singh. She has not disclosed the name of her husband. We are not sure whether at the time of filing original application she was married or not but from the averments of the applicant contained in para 6(ii) where the respondents No.5 has specifically pleaded that husband of the applicant is working in Punjab and she has an adult son who is a Painter earning more than Rs. 200/- per day, therefore possibly at the time of filing original application on July 31, 2002 she was having the status of married woman. Thus, where a persons conceals material fact, he or she is not entitled to the relief as claimed. 17. On consideration of rival stands in O.A. 693/2002 no malafide has been alleged or averred. The illegality or irregularity pointed out is that appointment has been made without following proper procedure. We regret our inability to accept this line of argument because appointment of Krishna Devi has been under Clause 12 of the Scheme on compassionate grounds. Thus, no case of unfairness and partisanship is made out. 18. The illegality or irregularity pointed out is that appointment has been made without following proper procedure. We regret our inability to accept this line of argument because appointment of Krishna Devi has been under Clause 12 of the Scheme on compassionate grounds. Thus, no case of unfairness and partisanship is made out. 18. Similarly in O.A., 1602/2002 the applicant is guilty of concealment of facts. On merits no case of unfairness or an act to be termed as illegal or vitiated by patent irregularity vitiating the selection etc. is made out. Above being the position, we are of the considered view that where no strong case has been made out of unfairness and partisanship, then the selection of Krishna Devi respondent by a competent authority does not require to be interfered with. Consequently, both the original applications No. 693/2002 and 1602/2002 are dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of order be placed on O.A. 1602/2002.