IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 13654 of 2008 Judgment reserved on : 17.5.2011 Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Sunita Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. K.S.Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Smt. Phulan Devi Sharma, respondent No.3 in person. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed mainly the following relief: “That respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to issue a letter of appointment to the applicant to respondent No.3, who is Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Bhulani, with further direction to respondent No.3 to issue a letter of appointment and enter into an agreement with the applicant pursuant to her appointment already issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh under Clause 12 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 of the Part-Time Water Carrier Policy issued by the State Government on March 07, 2002.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a deserted woman by her husband and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner submitted her application with requisite papers to the Government for consideration of her case for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier under Clause 12 of the Policy. The case of the petitioner was considered for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Jaroh but later on it was modified by the Director of Primary Education through communication dated 8.2.2006 and the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samkri within the area of Gram Panchayat, Bhulani, Development Block, Bhoranj. It has been alleged that the post of Part Time Water Carrier is lying vacant in Govt. Primary School,Samkri since January 2006. 3. The petitioner had been running from pillar to post for issuing further order to respondent No.3 for her appointment as Part Time Water Carrier pursuant to order already issued by the Government. The respondent No.2 is sitting over the orders and not issuing the same for reasons best known to him. The petitioner has sought a direction to respondent No.3 to further issue letter of appointment and enter into a contract with the petitioner in pursuance of policy for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier. 4. The respondents No.1 and 2 have contested the petition by filing joint reply. It has been stated that name of the petitioner was approved by the Government under Clause 12 for the post of Part Time Water Carrier for Govt. Primary School, Jaroh but in the 3 meantime one Smt. Neena Devi was approved by the Government for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier at Govt. Primary School, Jaroh and Smt. Neena Devi joined on 21.2.2005. 5. The name of petitioner was again approved by the Government for Govt. Primary School, Samkri vide letter dated 31.1.2006 and the approval of the Government was sent to respondent No.2 on 8.2.2006 for appointment of petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samkri. It appears letter dated 8.2.2006 was misplaced and, therefore, no action was taken. 6. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 on 24.4.2006. On this, on 25.4.2006 the respondent No.2 requested the Director of Elementary Education, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla to supply the copy of order vide which approval in favour of petitioner was sent to his office to appoint her as Part Time Water Carrier at Govt. Primary School, Samkri. The copy of the said letter was sent to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28.4.2006. 7. On 17.5.2006 respondent No.2 had informed the petitioner to send essential documents which were required to be examined before offering her appointment. But petitioner had failed to submit essential documents to offer her appointment under Clause 12 of the Policy. It has been ultimately stated that the appointment of the petitioner under Clause 12 has been held up for want of supply of documents. 8. It has been alleged that as per information received from respondent No.2 the petitioner does not belong to Gram Panchayat, Bhulani where the Govt. Primary School, Samkri is situated. The Government has now approved the name of one 4 Smt.Meena Devi under Clause 12 of the Policy for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samkri. The respondent No.2 vide letter dated 17.5.2006 has informed Smt. Meena Devi to submit necessary documents, who has submitted all the documents and Smt. Meena Devi has been found fit to be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier under Clause 12 of the Policy. But due to the filing of the present petition, the appointment could not be given to said Smt. Meena.The petitioner has filed rejoinder in which she has stated that all the relevant papers as required under the Scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier were given in the office of Deputy Director of Education (Primary), Hamirpur on 21.5.2006. 9. The Clause 12 of the Policy is an exception which is for compassionate appointment and authorizes the Government to appoint any candidate as Part Time Water Carrier on compassionate ground without following the selection process if the candidates are widows, women deserted by their husbands or otherwise destitute handicapped persons and if the candidates falls below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time. It has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed under Clause 12 of the Policy as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Samkri. The appointment of petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier has not been challenged by anyone. Once the Government has appointed the petitioner under Clause 12 of the Policy, it is implicit that the Government has considered the eligibility of petitioner for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samkri. The respondent 5 No.2 has no jurisdiction to sit over the decision of the Government for appointment of a person under Clause 12 of the Policy under the garb of considering the eligibility of particular person on a particular post unless he has been authorized by some Rule or Policy, but no such Rule or Policy has been shown at the time of hearing. 10. It appears from the stand of the respondents No.1 and 2 that offer of appointment was not given to the petitioner on the ground that she did not submit the requisite papers. This appears to be merely an excuse on the part of the respondents No.1 and 2 for not giving offer of appointment to petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samkri despite her appointment as such by the Government. In the reply, the respondents have submitted that vide letter date 17.5.2006 they informed the petitioner to send the essential documents which were required to be examined before offering the appointment to her. In the same reply, it has been stated that as per information received from respondent No.2 on receipt of letter dated 12.4.2006 the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 17.5.2006 had also informed Smt. Meena Devi to submit the necessary documents which were essentially to be examined for appointment her under Clause 12. The petitioner was appointed under Clause 12, on 17.5.2006 she was asked to submit the necessary documents and without waiting for a reasonable time, the respondent No.2 on 17.5.2006 asked Smt. Meena Devi to submit necessary documents for her appointment under Clause 12 of the Policy. 11. The petitioner has submitted that she had submitted the requisite documents on21.5.2006 through her father in pursuance to 6 letter dated 17.5.2006. The reply dated 5.7.2006 of respondents No. 1 and 2 is completely silent on this point. It shows that respondents No.1, 2 for one reason or other want to oust the petitioner for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samkri. It is not believable that the petitioner who is contesting her case since the year 2006 would not supply the requisite documents in response to letter dated 17.5.2006. Atleast this is not the case of respondents No.1 and 2 that the documents submitted by the petitioner were not in order. Respondent No.3 Smt. Phulan Devi Sharma, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bhulani appeared in the Court on 17.5.2011 at the time of hearing of the petition and she has stated that even on that date the post of Part Time Water Carrier was lying vacant in Govt. Primary School, Samkri. She has stated nothing about the ineligibility of the petitioner for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samkri. The petitioner has made out a case for her appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samkri. 12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Samkri after completing necessary requirements as per Policy within two weeks from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority. The petition stands disposed of on above terms. ( Kuldip Singh ), May 20. 2011. Judge. (GR)