IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 4532/2008 Decided on:23.4.2010 _____________________________________________ Aditya Dutt. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Dharyan Kangar. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was more experienced on the basis of certificates issued vide Annexures A-3 and A-6 dated 9.10.1995 and 12.8.1997, respectively. It appears from the pleadings that the State Government had decided to fill up the post of Part Time Water 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Carrier in Government Primary School, Dharyan Kangar. The Selection Committee recommended the name of respondents No.4 to the post in question as per short reply filed by the State. 2. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has produced copy of the scheme dated 6.7.1996 framed by the State Government for filling the posts of Part Time Water Carriers and letter dated 30.11.1996 for the perusal of the Court. 3. Mr. Bimal Gupta on the basis of Annexures A-3 and A-6 has strenuously argued that the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier is contrary to law. According to him, his client should be deemed to have been appointed as Part Time Water Carrier on the basis of letter dated 30.11.1996. 4. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. The Government of Himachal Pradesh has framed the recruitment scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in the schools of Education Department with the objective to provide Part Time Water Carriers (against specifically created posts). It is evident from the various paras of the scheme that the appointment is to be made by a duly constituted Selection Committee presided over by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned with other Members. 3 7. It appears from the pleadings that the post in question was advertised and respondent No.4 had submitted an application and thereafter her name was recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner was required to apply for the post as per the scheme framed by the State Government. The State Government has issued letter dated 30.11.1996 whereby it has been decided that Part Time Water Carriers appointed by the Parent Teacher Association or Local Panchayat prior to 31.3.1996 and continuing to work as such shall be deemed to be appointed as Water Carriers under the scheme with effect from 6.7.1996. The text of letter dated 30.11.1996 reads thus: “I am directed to refer to your letter No. EDN-(ii)(1) 8(6)-18/88 dated 4.11.96 on the subject cited above. It has been decided that water carriers appointed by the Parent Teacher Association, or locals Panchayat on honorary basis prior to 31.3.1996 and continuing to work as such shall be deemed to be appointed as water carriers under the scheme with effect from 6.7.96. As regards approval of instructions for selection of part time water carriers as requested by you vide letter dated 16.11.96 it may be pointed out here that in view of the Notification of the scheme for the appointment of water carrier and the constitution of the selection committee nothing more is to be done at the Government level. The selection committee is to interview eligible candidates where the appointments have not been made by the Government on compassionate grounds.” 4 8. A bare perusal of letter dated 30.11.1996, as reproduced hereinabove, reveals that the appointment is required to be made either by the Parent Teacher Association or by the Local Panchayat on honorary basis prior to 31.3.1996. 9. Mr. Bimal Gupta has also tried to take help of letter dated 30.11.1996 issued by the State Government produced before the Court during the course of hearing. According to him, since his client was appointed before cut off date, i.e. 31.3.1996, his client should be deemed to have been appointed as Part Time Water Carrier. It is clear from the contents of letter dated 30.11.1996 that a person to take benefit of this letter was required to be appointed either by the Parent Teacher Association or by the Local Panchayat on the basis of resolution. Petitioner has only placed on record experience certificates issued by Centre Head Teacher and Pradhan, Gram Panchayat dated 9.10.1995 and 12.8.1997, respectively. The petitioner has not placed the copy of resolution either passed by the Parent Teacher Association or by the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, the petitioner was appointed as Water Carrier-cum-Sweeper. He was required to be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to take benefit of letter dated 30.11.1996 also. 10. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.4.2010*awasthi*