IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7548/2008 Decided on:20.5.2009 Ashok Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier for the Government Primary School, Bharmoti, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that he was appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bharmoti pursuant to his selection by the Gram Panchayat. He submitted joining on 8.6.2000. He belongs to OBC category. However, according to him, the respondent-State has 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 appointed respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bharmoti. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that once the petitioner has been appointed as Part Time Water Carrier by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of the resolution, respondent No.4 could not be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier is regulated under the notification dated 6.7.1996 and the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the terms of the notification. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the parties carefully. A bare perusal of notification dated 6.7.1996, copy of which is produced by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General during the course of hearing, reveals that as per para 4 of the scheme, the Block Primary Education Officer/Headmaster/Principal is required to call applications for recruitment against the post of Part Time Water Carrier by advertisement through the Panchayat and School Notice Boards. Thereafter the suitability of the candidate is to be adjudged by the duly constituted selection committee. The State Government has been authorized to make appointment of any candidate as Part Time Water Carrier as per para 12 of the scheme on compassionate ground without following the selection process if the candidates are widows, women deserted by their husbands or otherwise destitute, handicapped etc. The appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with the notification dated 6.7.1996. The post in question was neither advertised nor any applications were called for as per the submission made by the learned 3 Senior Additional Advocate General at the time of appointment of the petitioner. His appointment was not made by the duly constituted selection committee as per notification dated 6.7.1996. The appointment of respondent No.4 is in accordance with para 12 of the notification dated 6.7.1996. The appointment of the petitioner was on volunteer basis by the Gram Panchayat at its own level. The husband of respondent No.4 was enrolled in the Indian Army. He is missing since 1995. In these circumstances the appointment of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier made under para 12 of the Scheme cannot be faulted with. She for all intents and purposes is to be treated as destitute woman. Since the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, as noticed above, he could not seek continuation of his services. The appointment of respondent No.4 under para 12 of the Scheme is in accordance with law. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 20.5.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*