IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 3997 of 2008. Decided on 03.06.2011. _____________________________________________________ Dev Raj. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Respondent No. 4 already ex parte. None for respondents No. 5 to 9. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner claims that he was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Lower Hareta in 1993. He has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier vide order dated 23rd August, 2004. 2. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that since his client was already working as Part Time Water Carrier, respondent No. 4 could not be appointed in view of letter dated 3rd September, 2001, whereby the Water Carriers appointed till 31.12.2000 were not to be removed. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. - 2 - 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, vehemently argued that petitioner was never appointed as Part Time Water Carrier either by the P.T.A. or by the Gram Panchayat concerned. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has not placed on record any tangible evidence to establish that he was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier either by the concerned Gram Panchayat or by the Parents Teacher Association. Petitioner has only relied upon the certificate Annexure A-3 issued by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Lathian, District Una. This certificate does not bear any date, thus, it cannot be taken into consideration. Petitioner has assailed the action of respondents No. 1 to 3, whereby respondent No. 4 was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Lower Hareta by way of Original Application No. 2828 of 2004. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh. He decided the same on 31.08.2005. The order dated 31.08.2005 is speaking/detailed. It is apparent from the contents of Annexure A- 7, dated 31.08.2005 that an inquiry was got conducted from the Deputy Director of Education, Hamirpur to ascertain whether the petitioner was ever appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Lower Hareta in 1993, as claimed by him. The Deputy Director has submitted the report to the Principal Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, according to which, the petitioner was never appointed - 3 - as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Lower Hareta. The statements of concerned persons were also recorded. 6. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 9. Respondents No. 5 to 9, though have supported the case of the petitioner, but have not stated whether the petitioner was ever appointed by the P.T.A. or by the concerned Gram Panchayat. It was necessary for respondents No. 5 to 9 to mention in the reply the manner in which the petitioner has been appointed. Rather, it has come in the reply that one Dharam Chand was working as Part Time Water Carrier and he was promoted as Whole Time and shifted from Government High School, Lower Hareta on 14.06.2000 to Government High School Rangas. It further belies the case of the petitioner that he was working as Part Time Water Carrier. In fact, as per the reply it was Dharam Chand, who was working as Part Time Water Carrier. Since the petitioner was not appointed by the Parents Teacher Association or concerned Gram Panchayat, he cannot take advantage of the notification dated 3rd September, 2001. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 03, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - - 5 - `