IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 15449 of 2008 (OA No. 1993 of 2007) Date of decision: 12.8.2010 Prem Lata ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral). The petitioner has prayed mainly the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents be directed to accept the document as desired by them vide letter dated 30.7.2007 and give her appointment as part time water carrier for GPS Jatol with immediate effect. (ii) That to quash the on going action of the respondents whereby they are giving appointment Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… to the respondent No.5 as part time water carrier for GPS Jalot”. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner is resident of village Kalwag, Tehsil and Distt Shimla and belongs to IRDP family. She is a widow and under clause 12 of the policy she made a representation to the Chief Minister on 29.6.2007 for appointment as part time water carrier on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioner was also recommended for appointment as part time water carrier by Pardhan Gram Panchayat, Jatoli. 3. The request of the petitioner was considered by the Chief Minister vide approval dated 24.7.2007 and her case was sent to respondent No.3 for further action, who vide communication dated 30.7.2007 Annexure A-4 asked the petitioner to submit the requisite certificates to his office. 4. The petitioner on receipt of Annexure A-4 dated 30.7.2007 visited the office of respondent No.3 on 10.8.2007 and 13.8.2007, she was told that name of respondent No.5 has been approved for appointment. The request of petitioner was not considered by respondent No.3 and she was told that respondent No.5 was to be given appointment. 5. The name of petitioner was earlier also approved under clause 12 of the policy for appointment as part time water carrier in the year 2005 for Govt. Primary School, Mundaghat , but she could not join her duties as one Smt. Geeta filed an Original Application in the erstwhile Tribunal and got stay with regard to the joining of the petitioner. This time also the respondents are depriving the …3… petitioner for seeking appointment as part time water carrier for another school without any sound reason. Even though, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by clause 12 of the policy. 6. The petition was contested by respondents No.1 to 3 by filing common reply. They have pleaded that the name of respondent No.5 was approved by the government for the post of part time water carrier for Govt. Primary School, Jatol under clause 12 of the policy framed for the selection/appointment of part time water carrier. The respondent No.5 is widow and belongs to B.P.L. family, she has been rightly appointed as part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Jatol. The petitioner was asked to submit requisite certificates but that does not mean that she was appointed as part time water carrier in the school. The respondents No.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. The respondent No.5 has also contested the petition by filing reply. He has submitted that petitioner has concealed the fact that respondent No.5 had already been appointed as part time water carrier and therefore, on this ground alone petition is liable to be dismissed. The case of the petitioner under clause 12 of the policy was considered alongwith others. The case of respondent No.5 was approved by the competent authority and she was recommended for appointment as part time water carrier vide communication dated 9.8.2007, but no such appointment letter has been issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.5 was fully eligible for appointment as part time water carrier under clause 12 of the policy being widow and she belongs to B.P.L. family having three minor …4… children to support. The respondent No.5 has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.5 and has reiterated her stand. In rejoinder she has not denied the issuance of communication dated 9.8.2007 vide which respondent No.3 has directed the Pardhan Gram Panchayat to issue appointment letter to respondent No.5. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On 22.7.2010, a direction was issued to produce the record which has been produced today in the Court. On the basis of record, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that case of the petitioner for appointment as part time water carrier was considered under clause 12 of the policy so also the case of respondent No.5 but ultimately name of respondent No.5 was recommended for appointment as part time water carrier under clause 12 of the policy. On 9.8.2007 Dy. Director Elementary Education has directed the President Gram Panchayat, Darbhog to issue appointment letter to respondent No.5 for appointment as part time water carrier at Govt. Primary School, Jatoli (Mashobra). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of Annexure A-4 dated 30.7.2007 the petitioner was appointed as part time water carrier under clause 12 of the policy, therefore, respondent No.5 could not have been appointed as part time water carrier vide letter dated 9.8.2007. 10. It has come on record that petitioner and respondent No.5 had applied under clause 12 of the policy for appointment as part time water carrier. The Dy. Director of Elementary Education …5… vide communication dated 30.7.2007 asked some information from petitioner. The communication dated 30.7.2007 Annexure A-4 clearly stipulates that her case for appointment as part time water carrier under clause 12 of the policy was under consideration. The annexure A-4 nowhere shows that the petitioner has been appointed as part time water carrier. On the contrary letter dated 9.8.2007 of Dy. Director Elementary Education clearly states that respondent No.5 has been appointed as part time water carrier. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also gone through the record produced today in the Court by the learned Addl. Advocate General and has stated that there is no appointment letter of petitioner as part time water carrier in the record. The Annexure A-4 is not appointment letter of petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that since she has been appointed as part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Jatoli, therefore, respondent No.5 could not have been appointed as part time water carrier in the school. This stand of the petitioner does not emerge from the record. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. August 12, 2010 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.