IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 15625/2008 Reserved on: 11.3.2011 Decided on:23.3.2011 _____________________________________________ Champa Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bainsh. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that she has been divorced by her husband and she belongs to I.R.D.P./B.P.L. family. She submitted an application for considering her candidature for the post of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Part Time Water Carrier. She was called upon by respondent No.3 on 14.8.2007 to supply the necessary documents within a period of ten days. The documents were supplied by the petitioner to respondent No.3 on 16.8.2007. Thereafter she prayed for issuance of appointment of letter. However, she subsequently came to know that respondents No.1 to 3 have approved the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bainsh. 2. Mr. M.C. Verma has strenuously argued that the action of respondents No.1 to 3 to issue appointment letter to respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bainsh is illegal, arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Romesh Verma have defended the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bainsh 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. It is true that case of the petitioner was also approved by the State Government by invoking rule 12 of the Scheme formulated on 27.7.2001. Case of the petitioner 3 was that she has been divorced and was in dire need of a job. The Court has perused Annexures A-2 and A-3 on the basis of which the petitioner claims to be divorced by her husband. There is a procedure established under law to obtain divorce. Divorce cannot be sought merely on the basis of swearing an affidavit. 6. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have also held that the marriage cannot be dissolved according to custom etc. The petitioner has not proved on record the dissolution of her marriage according to the process of law. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Nath Yadav versus Sheela Devi, (2010) 9 SCC 484 have held as under (para 7): “The High Court has rightly held that dissolution of marriage through Panchayat as per custom prevailing in that area and in that community permitted cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the 1955 Act. We fully agree with the said decision for the reason that in case the appellant wanted a decree on the basis of customary dissolution of marriage through Panchayat held on 7-6-1997, he would not have filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act. Filing this petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that the divorce granted by the Panchayat was legal. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court.” 7. Annexures A-2 and A-3 have been procured by the petitioner only to seek appointment. The Court has 4 come across number of such like affidavits claiming divorce only to get public employment. Court deprecates this practice. It is the duty cast upon the State to ensure that the certificates/testimonials are genuine and have been issued in accordance with law. 8. Interestingly, respondent No.2 has sought documents from the petitioner on 14.8.2007 and Annexure A-2 has been sworn on 16.8.2007 and similarly Annexure A-3 has also been prepared on 16.8.2007. Likewise, the certificate dated 14.8.2007 issued by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat; Bhaloh cannot be given any credence. This document has also been prepared after the receipt of letter from respondent No.2 to supply the necessary documents. 9. Now, as far as case of respondent No.4 is concerned, her case was also considered under rule 12 of the Scheme. She is physically challenged lady. She suffers from 50% disability, as per Annexure R-4/1. She also belongs to B.P.L. family. The appointment letter of respondent No.4 has been issued in supersession of the earlier letters. The Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bainsh. Claim of the petitioner to seek appointment 5 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bainsh was based on documents, which are not trustworthy. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.3. 2011 *awasthi*