IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3535 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.7.2010 Asha Devi ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ………Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G., for respondents No. 1 to 4. Miss Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate, for respondents 5 and 6. Per Surjit Singh, J. A letter of appointment as Part Time Water Carrier was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Deputy Director Primary Education, Hamirpur on 8th September, 2009, copy Annexure P-2, and the Pradhan of the Panchayat was directed to appoint her in Government Primary School, Amned. When Pradhan did not comply with order Annexure P-2, a representation was made to the District Panchayat Officer by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 petitioner, who vide letter dated 18th September, 2009, copy Annexure P-3, issued a direction to the Pradhan, who is impleaded as respondent No. 5. When the petitioner was still not allowed to join, she filed the present petition. 2. During the pendency of the petition, a lady by the name of Asha Kumari, wife of late Shri Santosh Kumar moved an application for being impleaded as party. She claimed that her name had been recommended for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in the Primary School, Amned vide letter dated 17th September, 2009, Annexure R-2 and that she was more deserving than the petitioner. Her application was allowed. She was made a party to the writ petition and arrayed as respondent No. 6. She has filed reply in which the stand taken by her is the same which she stated in her application for impleadment. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have stated that they have already issued direction to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat to comply with the order, Annexure P-2. At the same time, it is stated that newly added respondent No. 6 has also been recommended to be appointed 3 against the same post against which petitioner had been recommended earlier vide Annexure P-2. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been admitted on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 that letter Annexure P-2, which is dated 8th September 2009 and prior in point of time, compared to the letter, Annexure R-2, recommending the appointment of respondent No. 6 has not been withdrawn. If that is so, how could letter Annexure R-2, which is dated 17th September, 2009, recommending the appointment of respondent No. 6 have been issued. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that respondent No. 5 shall allow the petitioner to join as Part Time Water Carrier, the day she reports for duty and produces a copy of this judgment. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( Surjit Singh ), J. July 14, 2010, (vs)