IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 8645 of 2008 Date of decision: 13.12.2010. Biasan Devi …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure A-5 vide which Block Primary Education Officer has recommended that respondent No. 3 be appointed as part-time water carrier in Gram Panchayat, Bilaspur on contract basis. A prayer has also been made that respondents may be directed to consider and issue appointment letter to the petitioner with all consequential benefits of seniority and pay. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is permanent resident of village Bhaklehar, Tehsil Dehra. The husband of the petitioner had died on 18.4.1995. The petitioner belongs to IRDP family. The petitioner had been serving as water carrier in Government Primary School, Bhaklehar since the inception of the school without any remuneration. The petitioner was owner of land Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… comprised in khasra Nos. 305, 307, 311, 327 and 474 measuring 1- 27-34 hectares, village Bhaklehar. The petitioner had donated the aforesaid land for construction of primary school. She also handed over one room and verandah to the government for running the school. 3. The Gram Panchayat, Bilaspur vide resolution dated 5.1.1998 unanimously resolved that petitioner who belongs to IRDP family and destitute lady be appointed as water carrier in government primary school, Bhaklehar. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per Director (Education) memo dated 27.5.1999 further circulated vide memo dated 21.7.1999 provides that persons who were appointed by P.T.A. and had served without remuneration will be deemed to be in service, but despite that the respondents had declined job to the petitioner by selecting respondent No.3. 4. The interview for the post was conducted on 13.7.2002 and thereupon vide letter dated 6.8.2002 the Block Primary Education Officer has directed the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bilaspur recommending the name of Smt. Shakuntla Devi for appointment as part-time water carrier in Govt. Primary School Bilaspur on contract basis. It has been stated that appointment of respondent No. 3 is in violation of Clause 11 of policy Annexure A-6. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of appointment of respondent No.3 and has prayed for her appointment as part-time water carrier. 5. The petition has been contested by respondents No. 1 & 2 by filing reply. It has been stated that selection of respondent No. 3 has been made on the recommendation of duly constituted committee …3… for the purpose under the chairmanship of Sub Divisional Officer ( C) of the area concerned as provided under the instructions/ guidelines issued by the government regarding appointment of part time water carrier. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have stated that respondent No. 3 has secured 24 marks and petitioner 22 marks and on account of merit of respondent No.3, she has been appointed. 6. The respondent No. 3 has filed separate reply and has stated that she has been appointed by duly constituted selection committee on the basis of merit and performance in the interview and in accordance with the instructions of the government. She has joined as part time water carrier in govt. primary school, Bhaklehar on 28.8.2002. She has denied that petitioner has donated land for the school. She has also denied that petitioner had donated any room and verandah to the school. She has stated that she is physically handicapped with 45% permanent disability. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of her alleged claim that she had been working as part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Bhaklehar and therefore, she is entitled to appointment on the basis of part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Bhaklehar. The memo dated 27.5.1999 of Director (Education) further circulated vide memo dated 21.7.1999 provides that guidelines already issued that the persons, who were working as part time water carriers before 31.3.1996 appointed by the P.T.A. or Local Gram Panchayat in the school without any salary and were continuing as such, they may be treated to be appointed as part time water carriers since 6.7.1996 as …4… per notification dated 6.7.1996. The Annexure A-1 certificate points out that petitioner had worked in Govt. Primary School, Bhaklehar since its inception in October 1997. The memo dated 27.5.1999 provides that such working should be before 31.3.1996. According to the petitioner, she had been working as part time water carrier since October 1997, therefore, she cannot take the benefit of Annexure A-4 memo dated 27.5.1999 for appointment as part time water carrier on the basis of her earlier alleged appointment as part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Bhaklehar since October 1997. 8. It is also the case of the petitioner that she has donated land, one room and verandah for the school, which has been denied by respondent No. 3. The Annexure A-2 certificate issued by the Patwari indicates that petitioner had donated land comprised in khasra Nos. 305, 307, 311, 327, 474 vide affidavit No. 2323 dated 24.5.1999. The certificate of Patwari regarding donation of land by the petitioner in favour of Govt. Primary School, Bhaklehar is short of legal requirement of gift. The land cannot be gifted by way of an affidavit. There is no other material on record to show that petitioner had legally gifted land, room and verandah to Govt. Primary School, Bhaklehar. 9. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that in view of Annexure A-4 if a widow or handicapped is available then no person from other Panchayat will be appointed as part time water carrier. It has been submitted that petitioner is widow, therefore, respondent No. 3 could not have been appointed as part time water …5… carrier. The respondent No. 3 in her reply has stated that she is 45% handicapped. Moreover, Annexure A-4 provides that widow or handicapped, if available, then no other person from other Panchayat will be appointed as part time water carrier. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 has been appointed from other Panchayat. Moreover, respondent No. 3 is 45% handicapped. 10. The petitioner has also assailed the appointment of respondent No. 3 that merit-list and the result was not declared in terms of Clause 11 of policy Annexure A-6 for appointment of part time water carrier. The petitioner in the petition has stated that interview was conducted on 13.7.2002, but it has not been stated that on which date the result was declared. Annexure A-5 dated 6.8.2002 is the recommendation for appointment of respondent No.3 as part time water carrier. The letter dated 6.8.2002 of Block Primary Education Officer addressed to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bilaspur cannot be construed the result on the basis of interview dated 13.7.2002. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown what prejudice has been caused to her in case the result was not declared strictly in accordance with Clause 11 of the policy. The respondent No. 3 has already joined as part time water carrier on 28.8.2002 and she has been working on the said post. Therefore, seeing from any angle, there is no merit in the petition. 11. No other point has been urged. 12. The result of above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. December 13, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.