Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 433 (HP)

PADAM SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-11-22

M.R.VERMA, S.S.NEGI

body2005
ORDER M.R. Verma, J. (Retd.) Chairman (Oral) - The applicant in this original application has called in question the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Part Time Water Carrier in G.P.S. Haunchli under Clause 12 of the Recruitment Scheme for the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in the Schools of Education Department, on the ground that he was eligible for such appointment whereas respondent No. 3 was not eligible for such appointment. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and have also perused the selection record which was produced by respondents pursuant to the directions given by us vide order dated 3.11.2005. 3. Clause 12 of the Recruitment Scheme for the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in the schools of Education Department 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 widows, women deserted by their husbands or otherwise destitute, handicapped persons, and if the candidates falls below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time." 4. On a bare perusal of the above provisions, it is evident from the above clause that the government has the powers to give appointment as Part Time Water Carrier to a widow, deserted or destitute woman, handicapped person and those living below the poverty line without following selection process as provided for other eligible candidates. 5 In the case in hand, the applicant called in question the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the ground that she was not eligible for appointment under Clause 12 (supra) whereas he belongs to IRDP/BPL category and is physical handicapped. The record, however, does not support the claim of the applicant in so far as the eligibility of respondent No. 3 is concerned. On the contrary it is evident from the certificate issued by the Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Village Seri read with certificate of death of husband of respondent No. 3. that respondent No. 3 is a widow. It is further evident from the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, countersigned by the Block Development Officer that the family of respondent No. 3 is living below poverty line. that respondent No. 3 is a widow. It is further evident from the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, countersigned by the Block Development Officer that the family of respondent No. 3 is living below poverty line. Thus, respondent No. 3 was fully eligible for appointment as a Part Time Water Carrier under Clause 12 (supra). 6. In view of the above, there is no reason whatsoever to, interfere with the impugned appointment. 7. As a result this original application is dismissed.