IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 12762 of 2008 Decided on: 18.4.2011 Mani Ram …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. R.R. Rahi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J. S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Kuldip Singh, Judge(oral) The petitioner has prayed mainly the following reliefs:- i) The respondents No. 1 to 5 may be directed not to give appointment and joining to respondent No.6. (ii) The respondents No. 1 to 5 may be directed to give appointment & joining to the applicant as Part-time water Carrier for Govt. Primary School Jubbli, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being a poor and handicapped person had applied under clause 12 of the Policy for appointment as Part-time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jubbli, Tehsil, Chopal. The case of the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 was considered by the Government. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 6.10.2005 asked certain documents from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted all the documents to respondents No. 3 and 4 immediately after the receipt of letter dated 6.10.2005. The petitioner is physically handicapped to the extent of 40% and is also an unemployed. The distance between the school in question and the house of the petitioner is approximately 50 meters. 3. The respondent No.6 has been given appointment in the aforesaid school in place of the petitioner. The respondent No.6 does not fulfill the eligibility criteria. It has been alleged that one family member of respondent No.6 is employed as JBT and another is employed in the Employment Exchange, Kupvi. The distance between the house of respondent No.6 and the school is more than 3 Kms. 4. The petitioner is living in a miserable condition and he is not even in a position to earn his livelihood due to his permanent disability. No family member of the petitioner is in Government or semi Government employment. The Government recommended the case of the petitioner, but surprisingly respondent No.6 has been appointed in place of the petitioner. The respondent No.6 has procured appointment order as Part-time Water Carrier by manipulations. The appointment of respondent No.6 as Part-time Water Carrier is wrong, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide and is liable to be set aside. 5. The petition has been contested by respondents No. 1 to 4 by filing a joint reply. It has been stated that the names of the petitioner and respondent No.6 were approved by the Government 3 for the post of Part-time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jubbli. On receipt of approval from the Government, the case of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.6 was referred to the Government for seeking clarification as to who was to be appointed in the school against one post. On this, the Government issued approval in favour of respondent No.6 Dei Ram. Therefore, on the direction of the Government, respondent No.6 has been appointed as Part-time Water Carrier under clause 12 of the Policy for appointment of Part-time Water Carrier in the Department of Primary Education. 6. The Government has the power to appoint any candidate as Part-time Water Carrier without following the selection process if the candidate is widow, woman deserted by her husband or otherwise destitute, handicapped person and if the candidate falls below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time. The respondent No.6 is a handicapped and also belongs to IRDP/BPL family. The respondents No. 1 to 4 supported the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Part-time Water Carrier. 7. The respondent No.5 has filed the reply and has stated that the Pardhan has no concern with the appointment of candidate as Part-time Water Carrier. The Pardhan is to take only joining of the candidate. It is the prerogative of the Government to appoint a person under clause 12 of the Policy. No discrimination has been made to the petitioner. 8. The respondent No.6 has also contested the petition by filing a reply. He has stated that he has been appointed as Part- time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jubbli under 4 clause 12 of the Policy. He is handicapped to the extent of 60% and also belongs to BPL family. The distance between the house of respondent No.6 and the school is half Km. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that two family members of respondent No.6 are in Government service, one is JBT and the other is employed in the Employment Exchange, Kupvi. No details of these persons have been given. On the contrary Annexure R-6/D is the copy of Pariwar Register of Ramsa father of respondent No.6. In the family of Ramsa nine persons, including Ramsa have been shown and all are shown as agriculturists. Dei Ram, respondent No.6 is also included in the family of Ramsa in Annexure R-6/D. No family member of Ramsa has been shown employed in any Government service. 10. The respondent No.6 has filed a supplementary affidavit. As per certificate Annexure R-6/E issued by the Panchayat Assistant no family member of Dei Ram is in Government or semi Government employment. It emerges from the material on record that as per clause 12 of the Policy the Government has the power to make appointment deviating the normal procedure for appointment. In the present case respondent No.6 is 60% handicapped, he belongs to IRDP/BPL family. It has not been established that any family member of respondent No.6 is in Government or semi Government employment. 11. It has also come on record that at one point of time the Government had approved the case of the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 for appointment as Part-time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jubbli. This fact was brought to the 5 notice of the Government for clarification that against one post, two persons have been approved then who should be appointed. The Government finally approved the name of respondent No.6 for appointment as Part-time Water Carrier and thereafter he has been appointed as Part-time Water Carrier. 12. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Government did not consider the relevant material before clearing the name of respondent No.6 for appointment as Part-time Water Carrier. The relevant factors for appointment as Part-time Water Carrier under clause 12 of the Policy were more in favour of respondent No.6. Therefore, no fault can be found with the appointment of respondent No.6 as Part-time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jubbli. In view of above, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ), April 18, 2011. Judge. (vt)