Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 426 (HP)

Tulsa Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-04-22

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Satahan before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. It was transferred to this Court and assigned number as CWP (T) No.5837/2008. 2. Petitioner is a widow. She belongs to I.R.D.P. family. She is also physically handicapped. Distance between the school and her residence is almost one kilometer. Respondent No.4 is neither physically handicapped nor belongs to I.R.D.P. category. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 has unduly been favoured and no select list has been displayed by the Committee. 3. According to the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3, respondent No.4 was already working as Part Time Water Carrier before 31.3.1996. Respondent No.2 has filed separate affidavit. According to him, interview was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Nahan on 4.2.1999. According to him, petitioner had secured 22.05 marks and respondentNo.4 had secured 15.00 marks. However, fact of the matter is that respondent No.4 was already working as Part Time Water Carrier in the Government Primary School, Satahan on honorarium basis. 4. Since there was a reference to the order passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Tribunal in O.A. No. 316/1999, the file was summoned by the Court. On the basis of various instructions issued by the State Government, the Deputy Commissioner, Nahan has approved the name of respondent No.4 for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Satahan since he was working voluntarily without pay before 26.3.1996. The approved list is Annexure ‘D’ dated 8.9.1997. Name of respondent No.4 finds mention in Annexure ‘D’. Since respondent No.4 was not offered appointment letter, he approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 316/1999. An interim order was passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal on 15.2.1999 whereby respondents were directed not to dispense with the services of the applicant except in accordance with law and in view of the instructions dated 2.1.1997. Respondent No.4 was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier on the basis of letter dated 17.3.1999. In view of this, O.A. No. 316/1999 preferred by respondent No.4 was disposed of by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal on 26.9.2000. 5. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that respondent No.4 was working as Part Time Water Carrier voluntarily without pay. In view of this, O.A. No. 316/1999 preferred by respondent No.4 was disposed of by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal on 26.9.2000. 5. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that respondent No.4 was working as Part Time Water Carrier voluntarily without pay. The State Government had taken a decision not to terminate the services of those Part Time Water Carrier, who were working voluntarily without pay before 31.3.1996. Name of respondent No.4 was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Nahan on 8.9.1997 and despite that he was not offered appointment as per notification dated 2.1.1997. Notification dated 2.1.1997 reads as under: “Your attention is invited to this office endorsement of even number dated 1.1.97 on the subject cited above, wherein it has been decided by the govt. that Water Carriers appointed by the Parent Teachers Association, or local Panchayat on honorary basis prior to 31.3.96 and continuing to work as such shall be deemed to be appointed as Water Carrier under the Scheme with effect from 6.7.96. While implementing this decision it may please be ensured that no fake or fraud certificate is issued by the teacher as ell as Local Panchayat Pradhan concerned, so that no complaint arises at a later stage. In case any teacher or other dignitary is found guilty for issuing false certificate to any candidate, server action will be taken against such official/ person and FIR shall also be lodged against defaulter.” 6. It is in these circumstances, he approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, as noticed hereinabove and during the pendency of O.A. No. 316/1999, he was offered appointment on 17.3.1999. O.A. No. 316/1999 was filed by respondent No.4 assailing the decision of respondent-State to hold fresh interview on 4.2.1999 since case of respondent No.4 had already been approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 8.9.1997. The original application filed by respondent No.4 was prior in time vis-à-vis petitioner. Since the name of respondent No.4 was approved as per notification dated 2.1.1997, fresh interviews were not called for on 4.2.1999. The original application filed by respondent No.4 was prior in time vis-à-vis petitioner. Since the name of respondent No.4 was approved as per notification dated 2.1.1997, fresh interviews were not called for on 4.2.1999. The Deputy Commissioner has only complied with the instructions issued by the State Government, as noticed hereinabove, whereby a decision has been taken that Water Carriers, who were appointed by the Parent Teachers Association or Local Panchayat on honorary basis prior to 31.3.1996 and were continuing to work as such were deemed to be appointed as Water Carrier under the scheme with effect from 6.7.1996. 7. The petitioner has not assailed the appointment letter issued to respondent No.4 on 17.3.1999 pursuant to which he has already joined his duties as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Satahan. Respondent No.4 belongs to distinct category as per instructions issued by the State Government, being in employment before 31.3.1996. 8. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.