1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7886 of 2011 Decided on: 22.9.2011 Hans Raj ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : M/s Bimal Gupta and Vineet Vashistha, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i. That decision of respondent No. 3 terminating the services of petitioner as mid-day meal worker in Govt. Primary School, Bathloun on the basis of resolutions dated 9.6.2010 and 6.6.2011 respondent No. 3-Commitee may kindly be held wrong, illegal and may kindly be quashed, set aside. 2 ii. That petitioner may kindly be held to be in continuous service as mid-day meal worker in Govt. Primary School, Bathloun. iii. That direction may kindly be issued to respondent No. 3 to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of guidelines issued by GPS vide letter dated 29.4.2010 Annexure P-4.” 2. It appears that the petitioner was disengaged since the services of only one mid-day meal worker is required in Government Primary School, Bathloun. If that be so, the appointment and disengagement of the petitioner should be on the principle of “last come first go”. There cannot be any dispute on that, but the question is that who came first. According to the petitioner, both the petitioner and the fifth respondent had joined on the same date. If that be so, on the well settled law of seniority, older in age shall be deemed to be appointed first. 3. There will be a direction to the Block Primary Education Officer, Ani/Block concerned to look into the grievance of the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner, third respondent and the fifth respondent and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, with particular reference to the observations made by us in the judgment within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alngwith a copy of the writ 3 petition by the petitioner before the Block Primary Education Officer, Ani/Block concerned. The petitioner will also serve a copy of the judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition on the third and fifth respondents. 4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. September 22, 2011 (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (sck/hl) Judge.