Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 497 (HP)

Reena Kanwar v. State of H. P.

2012-09-04

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner had earlier also filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Dhakriana, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. One of us (Deepak Gupta, J) had disposed of the said writ petition on 22.11.2010 in the following terms:- “All these are highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in writ proceedings. No doubt, Rule 12 gives power to the Government to make appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier without following the selection process, but in case where there is more than one applicant who has applied for appointment under Rule 12 then in my considered view, the State Government is duty bound to see who is the more meritorious candidate. Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides that every citizen of this country is entitled to equal treatment under the law. If two or more candidates eligible under Rule 12 apply for the post of Part Time Water Carrier then the Government though it may not follow the regular process of appointment must see the respective merits of the candidates and select the most deserving candidate amongst themselves. I have however, no doubt in my mind that if the Hon’ble Chief Minister had been apprised that there were two applicants for the same post, he may or may not have taken the same decision. Approval on each noting has been obtained without apprising the Hon’ble Chief Minister about the fact that there was another applicant applying under Rule 12 for the same post. Therefore, I feel that the Additional Secretary to the Chief Minister should after placing all appropriate facts before the Hon’ble Chief Minister obtain fresh orders in this behalf. Needful be done within one month from today.” 2. Thereafter, the Additional Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minister placed certain facts before him whereupon the Hon’ble Chief Minister passed a detailed order. The relevant portion of the noting file reads as follows: “Commissioner, Solan is placed below for the consideration of the Hon’ble chief Minister for a fresh decision. Needful be done within one month from today.” 2. Thereafter, the Additional Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minister placed certain facts before him whereupon the Hon’ble Chief Minister passed a detailed order. The relevant portion of the noting file reads as follows: “Commissioner, Solan is placed below for the consideration of the Hon’ble chief Minister for a fresh decision. Details of Shri Narender Kumar and Smt.Reena Kumari are given below: Shri Narender Kumar Smt.Reena Kumari 60% handicapped Widow Produced low income certificate BPL family Unmarried Having two school going children Belongs to backward class Belongs to high cast Entirely dependent on Physically fit, hale and hearty father for his survival Unable to do physical work/ Occupationnis agriculture labour hence unfit for agricultural occupation Fther is owner of 25.4 bigha land Father-in-law owns 44 bighas of land. He retired as Inspector from HRTC and owns a house in Nalagarh Have obtained financial assistance Have been sanctioned financial assistance of from Government of Rs.24,000/- Rs.48,000/-from Govt. under Atal Awas Yojna for the construction of house under recently for the constructionof the house. Atal Awas Yojna a few years back. Recommended by Gram Recommended by Gram Panchayat and Director Panchayat and Director Education Education. Submitted for orders. Sd/- Addl. Secretary to CM 25.2.2011 Hon’ble Chief Minister: Since Shri Narender Kumar is physically handicapped and unable to cultivate his father’s land, and also dependent on his father, he has been appointed P.T,W,C, earlier, therefore, he may be allowed continue as such. Sd/-CM 26.2.2011” 3. From a perusal of the order passed by Hon’ble Chief Minister it is apparent that he had gone through the entire file and has come to a conclusion which cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse or capricious. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.