IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2295 of 2010 Reserved on: 6.4.2011 Date of decision: 11.4.2011 __________________________________________________ Urmila Verma …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ` ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.AG for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.J.L.Bhardwaj, counsel for respondent No.3. Ms.Seema Sood, vice Mr.Satpal Chauhan, counsel for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2 20.3.2010 whereby she was removed from the post of mid day meal worker/helper. This case makes interesting reading. The mid day meal scheme has been implemented in various Government schools in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Government has laid down the guidelines for the appointment of cooks to cook the mid day meals vide its letter dated 11.2.2010. It has not been disputed before me that such workers are appointed by the Village Education Committee alongwith the Parent Teacher Association and the Mother Teacher Association. We are concerned with the post of mid day meal worker in the Government Middle School, Chairi. On 15.3.2010, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of respondent No.5, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Chairi. The members of the Village Education Committee, Mother Teacher Association and Parent Teacher Association also took part in the said meeting. During the course of discussion, no unanimity could be achieved with regard to the person to be appointed but four names were 3 considered, viz. (1) Sh.Amar Singh, (2) Urmila Verma, petitioner, (3) Ratha Devi and (4) Reema Devi. Since there was no unanimity, the Chairman directed that person be appointed on the basis of voting and voting was conducted and the petitioner who had polled the highest votes was appointed. It is alleged that respondent No.3 Kanta Devi was present in the said meeting. Five days later on 20.3.2010, a fresh meeting was held under the chairmanship of respondent No.5 and the minutes of the meeting show that some people had objection to the appointment of the petitioner as cook and they had threatened to withdraw their children from the school in case the petitioner was retained as cook. The members present at that time felt that in case the persons withdraw their wards from the school, the strength of the school may fall and become so low that the school might have to be closed and hence decided that the services of the petitioner be dispensed with and respondents No.3 Kanta Devi be appointed in her place. 4 At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that whereas the previous meeting was attended by 21 members, the second meeting was attended by a lesser number of persons. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order whereby she has been removed from the post of mid day meal worker filed the present petition. Sh.Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of removal has been passed only with a view to accommodate Kanta Devi, respondent No.3 who was present in the first meeting, had signed the minutes and, therefore, could not object to the appointment of the petitioner. On the other hand, Sh.J.L.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 points out that nobody can be appointed by way of voting and if there was more than one candidate, the respective merits of the candidates should be gone through. He also contended that since as many as six members of the family of the petitioner are in Government service, the Village Education 5 Committee rightly decided to remove the petitioner from the post. On going through the record, I find that the manner in which the appointment was made and the manner in which the petitioner was removed are totally illegal. The post of cook must be filled in on the basis of some guidelines. The State must formulate some guidelines in this regard. The appointments of such cooks cannot be made on the whims and fancies of members of the Parent Teacher Association, Mother Teacher Association and Village Education Committee. These bodies may have the power to appoint any person but when the State is paying the remuneration of these cooks/helpers, some rational system of appointment must be followed. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is directed through the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to frame a policy in this regard within eight weeks from today. While framing the policy/guidelines, the Principal Secretary (Education) can lay down minimum educational qualifications. Preference can also be 6 given to the people belonging to the poorer sections of society and to widows and other destitute persons. The Principal Secretary may also consider the question whether appointment should be given only to those persons in whose family, no other member is in Government/organized service. Preference may be given to the persons belonging to the village in which the school is situate. Some rational method and guidelines are required to be followed so that proper appointments can be made. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that neither the petitioner was appointed in a proper manner nor she was removed from service in a proper manner. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that her termination is set aside. However, since the appointment of the petitioner itself is also irregular, after the State Government frames guidelines, the post shall be re-advertised and filled up in accordance with the guidelines to be framed. Since the Principal Secretary (Education) has been given two months time to frame the 7 guidelines, the respondents shall ensure that the post of the cook for the mid day meal scheme in Government Middle School, Chairi is re-advertised and filled up on the basis of the said guidelines latest by 31.10.2011. Till then the petitioner shall continue to hold the post. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. April 11, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge