Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 121 (HP)

MEERA DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-05-06

BAKHSHISH KAUR, D.S.AMIST

body2005
ORDER Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Retd.) Chairman: - The original application is against the action of the respondents whereby they have not renewed the contract period of the applicant for the period 2004-2005 for the post of part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Upper Dagraun, P.O. Kashmaila, and District Mandi. H.P. It is therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the applicant to continue as Part Time Water Carrier without any interruption and respondents especially Smt. Parwati Devi, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 4 be directed to renew the contract period of the applicant with all consequential benefits. 2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 admitted that name of the applicant was approved by the Government under clause 12 of the Policy for appointment as part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Upper Dagraun, Gopalpur Block, District Mandi., On the approval of the Government the Deputy Director, Primary Education, respondent No. 2 had requested the Pradhan i.e. respondent No. 4 to issue appointment letter in favour of the applicant because as per clause 12 of the policy dated July 27,2001 the appointment of the selected part time water carrier had to be made on contractual basis by the employer Gram Panchayat, Urban Local Body, after executing proper agreement between the candidate selected for appointment. It is also averred that contract for the year 2004-2005 had to be renewed by the respondent No. 4 and necessary direction may be issued. 3. The contesting respondent No. 4 i.e. Pradhan has raised preliminary objection that villagers of Dagraun and Upper Dagraun had made complaint against the renewal of the contract. The meeting of the Panchayat was held to discuss the subject i.e. renewal of the contract and it was decided on May 7,2004 not to renew the contract period of the applicant on the protest of the villagers, thus, the original application is liable to be dismissed. On merits, also, it is averred that the applicant does not fall in any of the categories as mentioned in Rule 12. The applicant has manipulated to get the job of part time water carrier by misrepresenting the facts. 4. The applicant by way of filing rejoinder has reiterated the pleas taken in the original application and denied the averments contained in the reply filed by respondent No. 4. The applicant has manipulated to get the job of part time water carrier by misrepresenting the facts. 4. The applicant by way of filing rejoinder has reiterated the pleas taken in the original application and denied the averments contained in the reply filed by respondent No. 4. It is also denied that there was any complaint against the applicant as has been certified.] 5. We have heard Sh. Lavnesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Abilasha Kumari, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sh. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 6. The above controversy has. fallen for our consideration, a) where the competent authority approves appointment of a candidate under Clause 12 of the Policy formulated by it for the appointment of part time water carrier ?b) Whether Pradhan can challenge the appointment of the candidate duly approved by the Competent Authority ? c) Is she justified in refusing to renew the contract simply for the reasons that some complaint was filed against selected candidate, therefore, the Panchayat passed a resolution not to renew the contract? 7. Such an act on the part of respondent No. 4 is totally uncalled for. The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary, Education and Deputy Director of Education, respondents No. 1 and 2 have categorically averred in the reply that the name of the applicant was approved by the government under Clause 12 of the Policy for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier, Annexure A-1. In the letter issued by the Deputy Director of Education addressed to Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Kasmaila under the subject " Guidelines for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier under Rule 12 of appointment of Water Carrier Planning 2001", it is specifically mentioned that the appointment of applicant Meera Devi as part time water carrier had been recommended, therefore, appointment letter be issued. It is also mentioned therein that the aforesaid appointment will be made on contract basis for academic session and thereafter will be renewed by him/her for every academic session. 8. Annexure A-2 is a certificate issued by none else but by Ms. Parwati Devi, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Kashmaila, respondent No. 4. it reads as under: - "Certified that Smt. Meera Devi wife of Sh. 8. Annexure A-2 is a certificate issued by none else but by Ms. Parwati Devi, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Kashmaila, respondent No. 4. it reads as under: - "Certified that Smt. Meera Devi wife of Sh. Malari Ram is permanent resident of village Upper Dagroun, P.O. Kashmaila, Panchayat Kashmaila, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. File No 22859-66 is a file of Water Carrier. Vide letter No. Sec./lcm-R-2/98-DEP-C-179059 dated 5.5.2001, Primary Education Department, HP. has recommended for the appointment of Smt. Meera Devi as Water Carrier in GPS Upper Dagraun, for which the local people and Panchayat have no objection. The applicant is entitled for the post of Water Carrier. Therefore, the applicant is appointed as Water Carrier." 9. Annexure A-3 is another certificate issued by the Head Master of Government Primary School, Upper Dagraun, on 17.4.2004 wherein it is mentioned that Smt. Meera Devi who was working as part time Water Carrier in the School vide order dated 5.5.2001 was appointed in the school and no complaint had been received against her nor there is any departmental complaint. 10. This being the position as it existed on April 17, 2004 the respondent No. 4 is bound to renew the contract. Similarly, on April 12, 2004 the Head Master, Centre Head School, Sashmaila, conducted a surprise visit on 29.1.2004 and certified that Smt. Meera Devi was present in the school and there was no public complaint against her work. The teachers of the school had not complained against her. Thus, the certified Annexure A-4 dated 12.4.2004 issued by the Head Master cannot be ignored. 11. Again a letter Annexure A-5 was issued by the District Panchayat Officer to the Pardhan Gram Panchayat, Kashmaila which is reproduced as under :- "The resolution No. 4 dated 7.5.2004 passed by Gram Panchayat Kashmaila in your Chairmanship has been received in this office. According to the resolution, all members of the Gram Panchayat are in favour of renewal of the contract period of Smt. Meera Devi and have recommended her to be continued on the said post. Only you are casing interruption for renewal of the contract period of the aforesaid Water Carrier. Before any action is initiated against you under the HP. According to the resolution, all members of the Gram Panchayat are in favour of renewal of the contract period of Smt. Meera Devi and have recommended her to be continued on the said post. Only you are casing interruption for renewal of the contract period of the aforesaid Water Carrier. Before any action is initiated against you under the HP. 1 Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, you may arrange for the renewal of Smt. Meera Devi wife of Shri Malari Ram, village Upper Dagraun, P.O. Kashmaila again for the post of Water Carrier in GPS Upper Dagraun at the earliest and the action taken may be intimated to this office as well as to the applicant." 12. Above being-the position when the competent authority firstly approved the appointment and later on had been directing respondent No. 4 to renew the contract, it is bounden duty of the respondent No. 4 to renew the contract for the period in question. By not doing so it amounts to defying the orders of the authority who had been reminding her to renew the contract as the appointment has been made on contract basis for academic session and it had to be renewed in each academic session. Consequently, the original application is allowed. The respondent No. 4 is directed to comply with the directions issued by the competent authority for the renewal of the contract with all consequential benefits. Respondent No. 4 is further directed to renew the contract period of the applicant for the year 2004-05 within 15 days from the date of receipt oj the copy of order.