Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1728 (HP)

Asha Devi v. State Of Hp

2018-09-25

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution of School Management Committee-3rd respondent, whereby her services as Mid-day Meal Worker in Government Primary School, Sadhor, Education Block-Surla P.O. Chakli Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, (H.P.) has been dispensed with and respondent No. 4 appointed as Mid Day Meal Worker in her place. 2. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 was working as Mid Day Meal Worker in Government Primary School, Sadhor. She as per Annexure R-1 to the reply filed on her behalf fell ill and was admitted for treatment in MM Medical College & Hospital Kumarhatti Solan. She was admitted on 28.3.2017 and discharge on 18.4.2017. It can reasonably be believed that during this period, she was prevented on account of her ailment to attend her duties. No doubt as per the case set up in the writ petition, she absented from duties on and w.e.f. 12.4.2017. The discharged slip (Annexure R-1) to the reply filed on her behalf further reveal that she was not attending her duties from 28.3.2017 onwards. Respondent No. 3 has conducted fresh elections in its meeting held on 17.4.2017 and elected the office bearers including the petitioner as its President. Since respondent No. 4 had not been attending her duties, therefore, taking advantage of that situation, petitioner in the capacity of President of respondent No. 3 has convened a meeting on 27.4.2017 and resolved to get herself appointed as Mid Day Meal Worker in place of respondent No. 4 on taking note of her absence from duty from 17.4.2017 onwards. 3. The complaint (Annexure R-1) to the reply field on behalf of respondent No. 3 was made by one Dayawanti to Block Primary Education Officer, Surla, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour. The services of complainant Dayawanti as Mid Day Meal Worker in the same school were dispensed with due to decrease in the number of children. On her complaint, Block Primary Education Officer-respondent No. 2 conducted an inquiry and found that the petitioner managed her engagement as Mid Day Meal Worker in the school by way of violation of guidelines and also removal of service of respondent No. 4 without issuing notice, she as such was removed from the school and in her place vide resolution dated 5.9.2017 (Annexure R-3) to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, has been re-appointed as Mid Day Meal Worker. 4. 4. In view of pleadings of the parties and also the record of the case coupled with the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides, the appointment of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 in its meeting held on 27.4.2017, presided over by none else, but the petitioner herself in the capacity of the President of said respondent, is not only contrary to the guidelines, but also in violation of all cannons of service jurisprudence. As a matter of fact, no one can be the judge of his/her own selection. Otherwise also, the removal of respondent No. 4 from the school in given facts and circumstances, is not only harsh, but oppressive also for the reason that she was prevented from attending to her duties on account of her ailment and also remained hospitalized as an indoor patient as per (Annexure R-1) to the reply filed on her behalf. Not only this, respondent No. 2 after holding inquiry into the allegation made in the complaint (Annexure R-1) to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 has concluded that the appointment of the petitioner as Mid Day Meal Worker in the school was irregular and not in consonance with the service jurisprudence. Respondent No. 2 has also concluded in the inquiry report (Annexure R-2) that removal of respondent No. 4 from the school without following the procedure and issuing even a notice to her, was illegal. Respondent No. 4, as such has rightly been re-appointed by respondent No. 3 vide resolution (Annexure R-3) to its reply. 5. We, therefore, are not satisfied with the submissions that removal of the petitioner from the school as Mid Day Meal Worker is illegal and also arbitrary. The writ petition as such being without any merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.