IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.4612 of 2008 (OA No. 1906/1997) Judgment reserved on : 15.7.2009 Date of decision : 7.8. 2009. Surinder Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P.& Others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.4. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure A-3 dated 5.7.1997 appointing respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier, he has also prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to appoint petitioner in place of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Dodra, Tehsil Kotla (Jaswa), District Kangra. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that Rai Singh father of the petitioner gave his land for Primary School, Dodra and on that land school is running since 1983. The petitioner has also 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 pleaded that earlier his father had worked as Part Time Water Carrier and thereafter the petitioner worked as Part Time Water Carrier without any remuneration since inception of the school and certificates Annexures A-1 and A-2 to this effect have been filed by him with the petition. 3. It has been alleged that Government of Himachal Pradesh had sanctioned a few posts in the State for water carriers on part time basis and a committee was constituted for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers. The petitioner was eligible for the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier, he applied for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Dodra. As per the requirements, interviews were required to be held by respondent No.2 for recruitment of water carriers on part time basis, but no such interviews were ever held. In July 1997 the petitioner came to know that respondent No.3 District Primary Education Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala issued office order dated 5.7.1997 appointing respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier vide Annexure A-3. It has been alleged that the appointment of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier is totally arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per the policy respondents No.1 to 3 should have given preference to a person who had worked for sufficiently long time without remuneration, the respondent No.4 has about 60 – 70 kanals of land and about Rs.3,00,000/- as hard cash in her accounts. The respondent No.4 has no experience. The house of the petitioner is situated just adjacent to the school, whereas the house of the respondent No.4 3 is situated at a distance of one kilometer from the school. The petitioner is fully eligible for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier. No interviews were conducted. 5. The respondents No.1 to 3 have not filed any reply but respondent No.4 has contested the petition by filing the reply. She has pleaded that her appointment is legal and perfect. She has denied that father of the petitioner had given any land to the school. It is her case that she became widow at a very young age and is having three minor children to support, her family has been identified as IRDP family and she filed certificate Annexure R-4/A to this effect. She has no source of her income. The petitioner is running a shop, his mother is employed as Anganwari Teacher and his grand- mother is also getting old age pension. The appointment of water carrier was made after following due process as laid down by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the recommendation of the committee as well as of the Deputy Commissioner. She has also submitted that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the appointments were made without any interview and recommendation of the committee. She has denied that she is having 60 – 70 kanals of land or any money with her. She has pleaded that her house is 70 meters away from the school. The petitioner is a big land owner and is running a shop also. 6. The Original Application No.1906 of 1997 was earlier filed in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application No.1906 of 1997 was transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWP (T) No. 4612 of 2008. 4 7. The office order dated 5.7.1997 Annexure A-3 provides that on the recommendations of the committee constituted by the Himachal Pradesh Government and Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, the District Primary Education Officer appointed Part Time Water Carriers, persons mentioned in the office order dated 5.7.1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the terms and conditions mentioned in the office order dated 5.7.1997 indicate that no verification was done before issuing office order dated 5.7.1997 which proves that no interview was held and, therefore, appointment of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier vide office order dated 5.7.1997 is wrong. He has also submitted that respondents No.1 to 3 have not filed any reply and controverted the allegations of the petitioner. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier is wrong which has been fully proved by the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has not placed on record policy, instructions under which the respondent No.4 was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier. The petitioner even in the petition has not pleaded the essential requisites for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers. He has also not pleaded or placed on record the procedure which was to be followed for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier. The petitioner has vaguely pleaded that as per requirements interviews were required to be held by respondent No.2 for recruitment of water carriers on part time basis but no such interviews were ever held. The respondent No.4 in her reply has pleaded that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that 5 the appointments were made without any interview and recommendation of the committee. The respondent No.3 had appointed 482 Part Time Water Carriers vide office order dated 5.7.1997 Annexure A-3. In absence of material, it is difficult to assume that the procedure prescribed for the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier was not followed by respondent No.3. The allegations of the petitioner regarding the property of respondent No.4 have been denied by respondent No.4. She has rather stated that she is a widow having three minor children with no income and on the contrary petitioner is big land owner and runs a shop also. The petitioner has failed to prove that the interview was to be held before the appointment of Part Time Water Carriers or no such interview was held. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference. 9. No other point was urged. 10. As a result of the above discussion, the petition fails which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), August 7, 2009, Judge. (GR)