IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1278 of 2010 Decided on : 19.05.2011 Kamla Devi ..… Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Devinder Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Pawan Singh, Advocate, amicus curiae for respondents No. 3 and 4. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 11-I and II :- “I. Issue a writ of Certiorari and mandamus for the quashing the oral termination of petitioner dated 17.3.2010. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 II. Issue a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to allow petitioner to work as cook-cum helper in Government Primary School Batol, District Mandi (HP).” 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the following stand has been taken vide paras 2 and 3 of the preliminary submissions:- “2. As per information received from the Block Elementary Education Officer, Sundernagar-II there is less than 25 students studying in Govt. Primary School, Batol (Sundernagar-II) and as per norms fixed by the Govt. there should be one Cook upto the strength of 25 students. So, the services of petitioner were terminated being junior in Government Primary School, Batol (Sundernagar-II) as per Govt. instruction vide letter No: EDN-H(EE)(4)4-17/2008-MDM Policy dated 29th April, 2010 regarding MDM Cook-Cum-Helper which provides the principle of “last come first go”. 3. This Committee is responsible to make arrangement for hiring the services of the helper/cook at the honorarium as per the guidelines of the project. It is further submitted that the replying respondents 1 & 2 have no role to play in the engagement of a cook or helper under the mid day meal scheme. This matter is, at best, between the said Mid Day Meal Committee and petitioner. Hence, the present civil writ petition is not 3 maintainable against the replying respondents and deserves to be dismissed.” 3. There is no reply on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 has also adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. 4. In view of the above reply and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Mid Day Meal Worker by exploring the possibility of adjusting her against an existing vacancy within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. The learned counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that presently a post of Mid Day Meal Worker is lying vacant in Govt. Middle School, Kinder, Sub Tehsil Nihri, Distt. Mandi, H.P. In case, there is no existing vacancy, she may be considered against a likely vacancy that may arise in the near future. 4 5. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 19th May, 2011. Lsp*