IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12262/2008 Reserved on: 23.2.2011 Decided on:9.3.2011 _____________________________________________ Asha Kumari. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 and 5. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Mundah, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner is physically challenged to the extent of 70%. She belongs to I.R.D.P. family. She is also a destitute lady. Case of the petitioner was approved by the State Government under rule 12 of the norms prescribed by the State Government for filling up the posts of Part Time 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Water Carriers, as is evident from Annexure A-2 dated 5.4.2005. Thereafter, the Directorate of Primary Education sent the case of petitioner to respondent No.3 on 26.5.2005. The Deputy Director, Primary Education asked the petitioner to appear before him alongwith necessary documents/ testimonials on 30.7.2005. Petitioner submitted the application vide Annexure A-1 and appeared before the Deputy Director, Primary Education alongwith the requisite documents/testimonials. However, the fact of the matter is that though case of the petitioner already stood approved by the State Government, respondent No.5 was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Mundah on the basis of letter dated 30.7.2005. According to the averments contained in the reply filed by the respondent-State, respondent No.5 has already joined her duties. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has vehemently argued that the action of respondents No.1 to 3 to select respondent No.5 under rule 12 of the Scheme is arbitrary and illegal, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has strongly relied upon Annexures A-4 to A-6 to prove that petitioner suffers from 70% disability, she is destitute and she belongs to I.R.D.P. family. 3 4. According to Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, name of respondent No.5 was also approved by the State Government, which led to issuance of Annexure A-7. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner’s case was approved by the State on the basis of Annexure A-2 dated 5.4.2005. Thereafter, Directorate of Primary Education sent the case of petitioner to Deputy Director, Primary Education, which led to issuance of Annexure A-3 dated 15.7.2005. Petitioner complied with Annexure A-3 dated 15.7.2005. She was legitimately expecting that on the basis of Annexure A-3, she will be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Mundah. However, the fact of the matter is that respondent No.5 was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Mundah on the basis of letter dated 30.7.2005. According to the contents of reply, the Directorate of Primary Education has received from the Government communication to appoint respondent No.5, which led to issuance of letter dated 30.7.2005. Respondents No.4 and 5 have been proceeded ex parte on 23.8.2007. Respondent No.5 was called upon to enter into agreement with the Gram Panchayat by 6.8.2005 and to join 4 the duties on 8.8.2005. Respondents No.1 to 3 have not placed any tangible evidence to establish that the case of respondent No.5 was covered under the conditions enumerated under rule 12 of the scheme. The very purpose of framing rule 12 will be defeated if the persons, who do not fulfill the conditions, are appointed. 7. We are dealing with the case of a lady, who is 70% handicapped, destitute and also belongs to I.R.D.P. family. Case of petitioner had already been approved by the State Government, as per Annexure A-3 and all the codal formalities were completed on the basis of letter dated 15.7.2005. Respondents No. 1 to 3 were only required to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, respondents No. 1 to 4 have offered appointment to respondent No.5 on the basis of letter dated 30.7.2005. Once the case of petitioner has been processed, considered and her appointment was approved, there was no occasion for respondents No. 1 to 3 to offer appointment to respondent No.5 in Government Primary School, Mundah. The very purpose of rule 12 is to help the persons, like petitioner, who is destitute, handicapped and belongs to lower strata of society. Rule 12 is also required to be applied judiciously on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondent-State cannot pick and 5 choose while making appointments under rule 12 of the scheme. There has to be some guidelines/norms, at the time when the appointments are made by invoking rule 12. The disabilities suffered by all the candidates are required to be taken into consideration. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Appointment of respondent No.5 made on 30.7.2005 is quashed and set aside. Respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to appoint the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-3 dated 15.7.2005 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 9.3.2011 *awasthi*