Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 644 (HP)

GEETA RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-07-14

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand, Judge (Oral):-The Original Application No. 2108 of 1997 was filed in Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was later on abolished. The cases of the erstwhile Tribunal were transferred to this Court in view of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008 and on transfer the Original Application No.2108 of 1997 has been registered as CWP (T) No.4689 of 2008 in this Court. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that petitioner belongs to IRDP family with 42% disability. The petitioner was selected for the post of Part Time Water Carrier by the respondent No.4 vide office order dated 2.1.1997 Annexure A-6. The petitioner joined his duties on 6.1.1997. The selection of petitioner was challenged by one Smt. Indra Devi by filing Original Application No.187 of 1997 on the grounds that the petitioner is not a poor person and is having a truck in his own name, two brothers of the petitioner are already in Government service and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the post of Part Time Water Carrier. Smt. Indra Devi prayed that being a widow she has better claim than the petitioner. 3. The erstwhile Tribunal vide order dated 13.3.1997 passed in O.A. No.2108 of 1997 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla to treat the Original Application as representation and finally decide the same after inquiring into the matter as per the guidelines. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla vide inquiry report dated 20.10.1997 Annexure A-8, recorded a finding that appointment of Geeta Ram, Part Time Water Carrier was in violation of guidelines issued by the Education Department, therefore, the appointment of Geeta Ram be treated as null and void and his services be dispensed with. 4. The petitioner has challenged the inquiry report dated 20.10.1997 Annexure A-8 in the present petition. It has been stated that the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the guidelines for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier properly. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is no more owner of truck because decree to the tune of Rs.2,81,357.25 was passed by the High Court in Civil Suit No. 80 of 1988 titled UCO Bank Vs. Geeta Ram on 13.5.1993. The petitioner is living separately from his two brothers for the last more than 10 years. He belongs to IRDP and in support of that he has filed Annexure A-10. Geeta Ram on 13.5.1993. The petitioner is living separately from his two brothers for the last more than 10 years. He belongs to IRDP and in support of that he has filed Annexure A-10. In the petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the report dated 20.10.1997 Annexure A-8 with a further prayer that selection and appointment of the petitioner by the selection committee as Part Time Water Carrier may be upheld. 5. The respondents have contested the petition by filing short reply. It has been contended that the petitioner has suppressed the material information about his economic condition at the time of interview which resulted in a wrongful gain to him and a wrongful loss to the State exchequer. The inquiry officer has recommended that the appointment of the petitioner being violative of the guidelines issued by the Education Department, fresh interview to the post be conducted by the competent authority after observing proper procedure. On the basis of inquiry report, the petitioner has derived benefit illegally and he is not entitled to perpetuate illegality. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. It has come in the inquiry report that Smt. Indra Devi belongs to IRDP family and is a widow. She had applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Middle School, Dhabas. The Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Dhabas had forwarded only applications of two candidates namely Geeta Ram and Mangat Ram. The application of Smt. Indra Devi was not sent to Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Chopal for considering her for the said post. The appointment of petitioner was made as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Middle School, Dhabas on the basis of interview held on 2.1.1997 vide office order dated 2.1.1997 Annexure A-6 issued by the Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Chopal. As per instruction dated 30.12.1996 issued from the Directorate of Primary Education, only the District Primary Education Officer is competent authority to appoint Part Time Water Carriers on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It is thus clear that Selection Committee mentioned in Annexure A-5 has power to select the candidate but ultimate appointment shall be made by the District Primary Education Officer as per instruction dated 30.12.1996 noticed in the inquiry report. 8. It is thus clear that Selection Committee mentioned in Annexure A-5 has power to select the candidate but ultimate appointment shall be made by the District Primary Education Officer as per instruction dated 30.12.1996 noticed in the inquiry report. 8. The recruitment scheme for the appointment of Water Carrier indicates that preference will be given to candidates who are from the families without any member in Govt. service. It has also been provided in the scheme that the Government shall have the power to appoint any candidate as Part Time Water Carrier on compassionate grounds without following selection process if the candidates are widow, 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. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner belongs to family living below poverty line as per Annexure A-1 dated 4.6.1996. He has also submitted that the petitioner is a disabled person as per Annexure A-2. It has come on record that petitioner is the owner of truck which he had purchased with the help of bank loan. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bank had filed a suit for recovery of amount which was decreed in favour of the bank. There is nothing on record that on the date when petitioner applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier, he was not owner of the truck. The petitioner was appointed in regular selection and not on compassionate ground, therefore, petitioner cannot take the benefit of below poverty line certificate Annexure A-1, disability certificate Annexure A-2 and IRDP certificate Annexure A-10. The application of Smt. Indra Devi for the post of Part Time Water Carrier was not forwarded to the Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Chopal for consideration, she was wrongly deprived from consideration. The appointment of the petitioner was made by the Principal as against the District Primary Education Officer as per instruction dated 30.12.1996. In these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the appointment of the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier at Govt. Middle School, Dhabas was not valid and legal. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference, resultantly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.