IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. : 1078 of 2008. Decided on: 23.03.2010. _________________________________________________________ Kanta Devi. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Ms. Tanu Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): Petitioner is a widow. Her husband died in a bus accident on 3.10.2000. She has two minor sons. The case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier was approved by the Chief Minister and the same was recommended to the Director of Elementary Education on 05.10.2007. The Director of Elementary Education on 10.10.2007 has ordered the Deputy Director of Elementary education to issue formal appointment orders in favour of petitioner. However, the appointment letter was not issued to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.No. petitioner due to imposition of code of conduct. She was informed on 30th January, 2008 that the State Government has decided not to implement the orders passed by the previous Government. Ms. Tanu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents of not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 30th January, 2008 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unjustifiable, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She then argued that the case of petitioner is squarely covered under Para-12 of the scheme. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has no right to get appointment letter after the issuance of letter dated 30th January, 2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The case of petitioner stood approved by the Chief Minister under Para-12 of the scheme for appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier. She is a widow. The Director of Elementary Education had already issued orders on 10.10.2007 to issue formal appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. The appointment letter was withheld only due to imposition of code of conduct during the ensuing Assembly elections. Petitioner was legitimately expecting that after the results were declared, she will be offered appointment letter. However, the appointment has been denied to the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 30th January, 2008. The reason assigned in this letter is that the Government has decided not to implement the orders passed by the previous Government. It is not a healthy practice to take a policy decision not to implement the orders of the previous Government. The governance is a continuous process. Moreover, in the present case, we are dealing with a widow, who has lost her husband, the only bread-earner in the year, 2000. She has two children to lookafter. The case of the petitioner has been favourably recommended as per Para-12 of the scheme being a widow. Respondents have not chosen to file any reply to the present petition. I have also gone through the certificate issued by the competent authority, whereby the income of the petitioner has been certified to be less than Rs.12000/-. The case of petitioner was squarely covered under the scheme framed for the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1, dated 30th January, 2008 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier within a period of four weeks from today. No. costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 23, 2010. (bhupender)