Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2286 (HP)

Pritam Singh v. State Of H. P.

2011-06-29

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature, under clause 12 of the Scheme for appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Sarchi, Block Banjar, District Kullu. Case of the petitioner was considered and respondent No.2 directed respondent No.5 to issue appointment to the petitioner. Appointment letter was not issued by respondent No.5 on the ground that respondent No.6 has already been selected as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Sarchi. 2. Mr. M.C. Verma has argued that the petitioner ought to have been offered appointment by respondent No.5 pursuant to letter dated 7.8.2007. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.S. Gautam have argued that the petitioner could not be offered appointment letter in view of Annexure R-1 dated 8.8.2007. According to them, respondent No.6 had already been selected on 6.7.2007 and in view of this; the appointment letter was issued to him on 12.8.2007. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner is seeking appointment under clause 12 of the Scheme. Clause 12 of the Scheme stipulates that the Government has 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. 6. In the instant case, the I.R.D.P. certificate has been obtained by the petitioner on 9.8.2007. Thus, at the time when the candidature of the petitioner was considered, he had not tendered the I.R.D.P certificate as per clause 12 of the Scheme. Respondent No.6 had already been selected as is evident from Annexure R-1 dated 8.8.2007. In view of this, respondent No.5 was within his jurisdiction not to issue appointment letter to the petitioner. The appointment letter issued to the petitioner was cancelled on 8.8.2007. Thereafter, respondent No.6 has been issued appointment letter pursuant to which she has already joined her duties. 7. In view of the observations and discussions made here in above, there is no illegality in the appointment letter issued by respondent No.5 in favour of respondent No.6. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.