IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3599 of 2010. Date of decision: 23.11.2010 Rajo Devi. …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Shri J.S.Guleria, Asstt..Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Kush Sharma, counsel for respondent No.4. Mr.B.C.Negi, counsel for respondent No.5. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner who was employed as a cook in Government Primary School, Kot Maseruan, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur has challenged the order dated 26.5.2010 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated and the respondent No.5 has been ordered to be retained as cook. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as a cook in Government Primary School, Kot Maseruan, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur in the 2 year 2004. The respondent No.5 Anita Kumari was also appointed to the same post in the same school in the year 2007. However, at that time, the designation of the petitioner was changed from cook to helper whereas Anita Kumari was engaged as cook. On 12.5.2010 the Deputy Director, Primary Education issued a letter stating that there shall be no difference between cooks and helpers and they should all be treated equally. On 29.4.2010 the Deputy Director, Primary Education issued a letter stating that if the number of students in a school falls below 25 then only one cook will be kept in the school and the services of the senior most cook shall be retained and the services of the junior most cook would be dispensed with. Basically the Department introduced the principle of ‘last come first go’ for terminating the services of the cooks. On 26.5.2010, the impugned order was passed. Vide this order, the School Management Committee came to the conclusion that the respondent No.5 Anita Devi is much more efficient and on the basis of her discipline, dedication to work and her ability, the Committee decided that Anita Devi, respondent No.5 be retained in service and the services of the petitioner be terminated. 3 Sh.Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that in view of the letter dated 29.4.2010, the School Management Committee could not go into the merits of the candidates and had to act strictly in accordance with the principle of ‘last come first go’ and the person who had last joined the school must be asked to go first. Sh.B.C.Negi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 contends that it is the school management which is running the school and which is best suited to judge as to which cook should be kept to cook the mid day meal. He urges that the principles of ‘last come first go’ cannot be stretched to such an extent that an inefficient person is retained and an efficient person asked to go. I am unable to accept the contention of Sh.Negi. The principle of ‘last come first go’ is a well established principle of service jurisprudence which has found statutory recognition in certain acts like the Industrial Disputes Act. In case this principle is not applied then there is danger of arbitrariness. One cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner has also been working in the school initially as cook and later as helper and again re- designated as cook(s) for the last five years. The Government in its wisdom has taken a decision that 4 principle of ‘last come first go’ has to be followed. It cannot be said that this principle is arbitrary. It applies across the board in all schools where there is reduction in the number of cooks. Therefore, I see no reason why the petitioner who had put in longer service should be asked to go first. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the order of the School Management Committee, annexure P/2 is set aside. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be retained in service and the services of the respondent no.5 be dispensed with by applying the principle of ‘last come first go’. The respondent-State is directed to take necessary action latest by 31.12.2010. No costs. November 23, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge