IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11218 of 2008 Date of Decision : 07.12.2011. Smt. Santosh Kumari Wd/ of late Sh. Bhoop Singh, R/o VPO Bhangrotu, The. Sadar, Distt. Mandi, HP. …Petitioner. Versus 1. State of H. P, through Secretary Education, Govt. of H.P., Shimla, HP. 2. Deputy Director Education (Pry.), Mandi, HP. 3. Abha Devi W/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Nagchalla, The. Sadar, District Mandi, HP. 4. Pushpa Devi, R/o Nagchalla, P.O. Nagchalla, The. Sadar, District Mandi, HP. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate. For respondents No.1&2 : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “ i) That the order dated 23.8.2004 Annexure : A-3) may kindly be set-aside and quashed and respondents be directed to appoint the applicant in pursuance to order dated 26.3.2002. ii) The Respondent No.3 be directed to issue appointment letter to the applicant and allow the applicant to perform her duties in accordance with the order dated 26.3.2002. ----------------------------------------- 1. Whether Reporters of local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 iii) That the appointment of Respondent No.4 in pursuance of order dated 23.8.2004 Annexure : A-3) may kindly be quashed and set-aside. iv) Any other relief as deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may be granted in favour of the applicant, in the interests of justice. v) The original Application may kindly be allowed with cost. vi) Entire record pertaining to present case may please be summoned and examined.” 2. Annexure A-3 reads as under;- “No.EDN (D) 1-528/2002-Loose Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Education IN THE MATTER: O.A. No.1058/2002 Smt. Santosh Kumari …. Applicant. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondent. ORDER Pursuant to the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal’s directions dated 26.5.2004, the undersigned has gone through all the relevant records pertaining to this case. The matter is clear. Under the policy, a part-time water carrier has to be resident of the Panchayat where the school is situated. Smt. Pushpa Devi is a resident of Nagchala Panchyat (where the school is located) whereas Smt. Santosh Kumari is a resident of Bhangrotu Panchayat. The latter could not, therefore, be appointed as water carrier for this school, and the Pradhan of Nagchala Panchayat was justified in refusing to issue an appointment letter to her. In the instant case, the confusion has arisen because the notes in respect of both were issued from the O/o the former Chief Minister. Now, to resolve the matter, and in order to comply with the Hon’ble Tribunal’s orders, approval for the appointment of Smt. Santosh Kumari is hereby withdrawn and the Director of Primary Education is 3 directed to issue orders for the appointment of Smt. Pushp- a Devi. With these observations the representation stands disposed of accordingly. (Avay Shulka) Principal Secretary (Edu.) to the the Government of Himachal Pradesh. ANNOUNCED 23.8.2004 Smt. Santosh Kumari, Wd/o late Sh. Bhoop Singh, R/o VPO Bhangrotu, Teh. Sadar, Distt. Mandi (H.P.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Endst. No. Even. Dated Shimla-2, the Copy forwarded for information and n/a to:- 1. The Registrar, HPSAT, Shimla-2 2. The Additional Advocate Genera-l, HPSAT, Shimla-2 3. The Director of Primary Education, H.P., Shimla-1, for immediate n/a. 4. The Deputy Director of Education, Mandi. His inaction to produce the relevant documents in this case is highly regrettable and he is directed to remain careful in future. Under Secretary (Edu.), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2.” 3. Names of both Santosh Kumari (petitioner) and Smt. Pushpa Devi (respondent No.4), were considered by the Government under Article 12 (Discretionary quota of the Government). The Government has finally taken a decision to allow private respondent No.4 to continue to work as a part-time water carrier in the school in question. 4. Petitioner intends to make a detailed and exhaustive representation to the respondents. As such, she does not press 4 the present petition. Liberty granted to the petitioner to make such representation. Upon receipt thereof, respondents shall decide the same within a period of three weeks. 5. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. 7th December, 2011 (Sanjay Karol), k.sharma Judge