Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1036 (HP)

Sunita Devi v. State of H. P.

2012-12-26

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMNET Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner is Scheduled Caste and also belongs to B.P.L. family. No member from her family is in Government employment. She submitted an application for considering her candidature for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Phogti, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, under rule 12 of the scheme to the competent authority. The selection process was commenced on the basis of Annexure P-8 dated 20.8.2010. Respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to submit the documents vide Annexure P-9 dated 10.9.2010. Petitioner submitted all the documents, as asked for. She was legitimately expecting that on the basis of Annexure P-9 dated 10.9.2010; she would be offered appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier under the scheme. Respondents No.1 to 3 instead of offering appointment to the petitioner commenced fresh process for filling up the post in question. Petitioner was also asked to appear in the interview vide Annexure P-11 dated 22.2.2012. She appeared in the interview on 1.3.2012. However, the fact of the matter is that respondent No.8 was offered appointment vide Annexure P-12 dated 27.3.2012. 2. Mr. Rakesh Chandel has vehemently argued that once the process has been commenced under rule 12 of the scheme, the process could not be scuttled by holding interview on 1.3.2012. He also contended that his client was required to be offered appointment letter after the completion of all codal formalities after the issuance of order Annexure P-9 dated 10.9.2010. 3. In fact, the reply has only been filed on behalf of respondent No.8. Mr. Narender Sharma has supported the selection of respondent No.8. He has also argued that respondent No.8 also belongs to B.P.L. family and has passed 10+2 examination. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that under rule 12 of the scheme, the process was initiated and the petitioner was asked to submit all the documents for appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Phogti. Petitioner, in compliance to Annexure P-9, submitted all the documents. But surprisingly, without completing the selection process by offering appointment to the petitioner, she was asked to appear in interview on 1.3.2012. This procedure adopted by the respondents No.1 to 3 was illegal. Petitioner, in compliance to Annexure P-9, submitted all the documents. But surprisingly, without completing the selection process by offering appointment to the petitioner, she was asked to appear in interview on 1.3.2012. This procedure adopted by the respondents No.1 to 3 was illegal. In fact, the appointment letter was required to be issued to the petitioner. Petitioner is a widow. She has two minor children. She also belongs to Scheduled Caste and B.P.L. family. No member from her family is in Government employment. Respondent No.8 is not widow though as per the certificate placed on record, she belongs to B.P.L. family. The appointment of respondent No.8 pursuant to interview held on 1.3.2012 is in negation of rule 12 of the scheme. Rule 12 of the scheme permits the appointment as Part Time Water Carrier of the candidate without going through the selection process, who is widow, woman deserted by her husband, or otherwise destitute handicapped person and the candidate falls below the poverty line as decided by the Rural Development Department from time to time. Petitioner has a better case vis-à-vis respondent No.8, being widow. 6. Mr. Narender Sharma has also argued that the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition once she has participated in the interview. This plea cannot be accepted. In fact, she was not required to face the interview on 1.3.2012 since the entire selection process of her appointment was completed except the issuance of appointment letter. The selection process which had commenced under rule 12 of the scheme should not have been scuttled midway to deprive the petitioner from appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Phogti. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-12 dated 27.3.2012 is quashed and set aside. Respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, on the basis of selection process, which had already commenced, under rule 12 of the scheme, within a period of three weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.