IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 5430/2008 Decided on:28.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Smt. Pushpa Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General No. 1 and 2 and 4. None for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) . Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.3 was selected as Part Time Water Carrier by the Block Primary Education as per the instructions issued on 6.7.1995. He joined his duties on 29.10.1996. His services were terminated vide office order dated 14.12.1996. He assailed order dated 14.12.1996 by filing original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal bearing OA No. 388/1997. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Deputy Commissioner. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No The Director of Primary Education vide office order dated 17.10.1996 addressed a letter to the District Primary Education Officer, Kullu enclosing therewith list of approved candidates for the post of Part Time Water Carrier by the Government. Name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 15. She joined her duties on 20.12.1996.3 Mr. L.N. Sharma has assailed Annexures P-1 and P-2 primarily on the ground that his client was not heard by the Deputy Commissioner while passing orders on 24.9.1997. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has supported order dated 24.9.1997. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. Respondent No.3 was appointed before the petitioner. He was appointed on 29.10.1996. His services were terminated on 14.12.1996. Thereafter petitioner was appointed and she joined her duties on 20.12.1996. The Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the directions issued by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed order dated 24.9.1997 and held that the petitioner has not even appeared in the interview. She was also present at the time when he heard the matter on 23.9.1997. He has categorically come to the conclusion that the representative of the Department could not justify the appointment of the petitioner. Rather, the petitioner herself has admitted, as per order dated 23.9.1997(Annexure R-4/1) that she did not appear in any interview for the post of Part Time Water Carrier anywhere and she was simply appointed as per the order of the Director of Primary Education. The petitioner has not led any tangible evidence on record to suggest that her appointment was in accordance with law. The appointment of respondent No.3 was made, as observed by the Deputy Commissioner, strictly as per instructions dated 6.7.1995. The petitioner has already been afforded reasonable opportunity, as noticed above. In these circumstances, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 24.9.1997 whereby he has set aside the termination order dated 14.12.1996. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 28.7.2010 *awasthi*