IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 13740/2008 Reserved on: 14.10.2011 Decided on:18.10. 2011 _____________________________________________ Durgi Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge . Petitioner lost her husband when she was 16 years of age. She is physically challenged to the extent of 53%. A post of Part Time Water Carrier fell vacant in Government Senior Secondary School, Samej, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu. She submitted an application to Hon’ble the Chief Minister on 23.11.2005 vide 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Annexure A-3. However, the fact of the matter is that candidature of the petitioner was not considered under clause 12 of the Scheme notified on 27.7.2001 and amended subsequently, vide notification dated 30.12.2003 as far as clause 12 is concerned. Respondent No.3 was offered appointment under clause 12 of the scheme as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Samej, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. 2. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo has strenuously argued that the candidature of the petitioner was required to be considered strictly in accordance with clause 12 of the Scheme. According to him, petitioner is a widow. She belongs to I.R.D.P. family and is also physically challenged to the extent of 53%. He further contended that respondent No.3 does not suffer any disability/handicap, visualized under clause 12 of the Scheme. Respondent No.3 only belongs to I.R.D.P. family. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kashyap appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has argued that his client was fully eligible and qualified to be considered for the post in question since he belongs to I.R.D.P. family. He then 3 contended that the petitioner was required to submit an application to the Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner is a widow and certificate to this effect has been issued by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, vide Annexure A-4. She belongs to I.R.D.P. family as per Annexure A-6 dated 9.11.2005. She is physically challenged to the extent of 53% as per Annexure A-5. She had already submitted an application to Hon’ble the Chief Minister for considering her candidature for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Samej, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. What is stipulated in clause 12 of the Scheme is that the State Government has the power to appoint any candidate without following the selection process if the candidates are widows, women deserted by their husbands, or otherwise destitute handicapped persons and if the candidates fall below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time. Affluent woman though widow or deserted and physically challenged may not be entitled to appointment under clause 12 of the Scheme. The 4 emphasis under clause 12 is that the persons belonging to these categories must also be below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time. The candidates mentioned in these categories are entitled to get the appointment under clause 12 of the Scheme, as notified on 30.12.2003. Petitioner fulfills the criteria being widow and also physically challenged to the extent of 53%. She also belongs to I.R.D.P. family. Respondent No.3 only belongs to the I.R.D.P. family and does not fall within the ambit of clause 12 of the scheme for getting appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier. The candidates, who want to apply under clause 12 of the Scheme, can also apply directly to the State Government. Thus, appointment of respondent No.3 was bad in law. The candidature of the petitioner was required to be considered for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Samej, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. The selection of respondent No.3 by respondents No.1 and 2 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Samej is declared arbitrary. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. 5 The appointment of respondent No.3 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Samej, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. is quashed and set aside. Respondent-State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of application submitted by her, vide Annexure A-3, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 18.10.2011 *awasthi*