IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 421 of 2011 Decided on: 04.11.2011 Rattan Singh …. Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the appellant: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): CMP(M) No. 1506 of 2011: Heard. The application is allowed for the reasons stated therein and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 421 of 2011: This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the High Court of Delhi rules as applicable to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 10.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which the appointment of respondent No. 4/appellant Rattan Singh to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Timbi was quashed and set aside. It was also directed that he shall cease to function forthwith and respondents No. 1 to 3 were directed to offer 2 appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Rato Devi respondent No. 4 herein, submitted an application for considering her candidature for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Timbi to the competent authority on 5.5.2006. The case of petitioner Rato Devi was approved by the Government on 24.5.2006 under Rule-12 of the policy. A copy of the same was also sent to respondent No. 2 on 24.5.2006. The letter was received in this regard by the Deputy Director (Elementary Education) on 30.5.2006. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 informed petitioner Rato Devi to supply all the necessary documents on or before 12.6.2006. She supplied the documents as sought on 9.6.2006. However, petitioner Rato Devi was not offered any appointment letter and meanwhile, respondent No. 4 Rattan Singh was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier against the said vacancy. 3. The plea taken before the learned Single Judge by the learned counsel for the petitioner Rato Devi was that once the case of the petitioner has already been approved by the State Government on 24.5.2006, the case of respondent No. 4 Rattan Singh could not have been approved on 1.6.2006 by the State Government and, therefore, petitioner Rato Devi was entitled to offer of appointment. The learned Single Judge has considered the case of petitioner Rato Devi as well as that of respondent No. 4 Rattan Singh and observed that the petitioner belongs to SC/IRDP category and she is a widow having five minor children and, therefore, her case was duly approved by the State Government on 24.5.2006. The petitioner was directed to 3 supply the documents and these were supplied. Once the case of the petitioner stood already approved, the case of respondent No. 4 Rattan Singh could not have been approved and accordingly he was not entitled to be issued letter of appointment. He also joined duties on 19.6.2006. It was observed that action of respondent - State to scuttle the selection process and offer appointment to respondent No. 4 was arbitrary. The case of respondent No. 4 Rattan Singh was that he was suffering from 40% disability due to hearing impairment. Both the parties were similarly placed since Rato Devi was a widow and respondent No. 4 Rattan Singh was a person suffering from 40% disability. However, once the case of the petitioner Rato Devi had been approved, she was entitled to the appointment. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and calls for no interference by this Court. However, it is clarified that keeping in view the fact that the case of Rattan Singh respondent No. 4/appellant was also allowed by the State Government, though on a subsequent date, therefore, he shall be entitled to be considered to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in the same Block as and when the vacancy is available. 4. With the above observations, the appeal filed by appellant Rattan Singh is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja ), November 04, 2011 Judge (BSS)