IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 9601/2011-A Decided on:1.12.2011 _____________________________________________ Roshni Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The process was initiated by the respondent- State for filling up the post of Part Time Sweeper in the Ayurvedic Dispensary, Reuri, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. Petitioner also applied for the post to respondent No.2. She was called for interview alongwith one Mansa Devi on 13.1.2000. The Selection Committee recommended the name of Mansa Devi for the post in question. Petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 assailed the appointment of Mansa Devi by way of OA No. 141/2000 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was assigned CWP (T) No. 7132/2008 after the abolition of the Tribunal. This petition was disposed of by this Court on 6.12.2010. The operative portion of judgment dated 6.12.2010: “Mr. Kuthiala submits that this is a legal aid matter. Mr. Kuthiala, today has placed on record extract of the Parivar Register in support of his contentions that private respondent No.3 belongs to another village and thus she was not eligible to have been considered under the terms of office memo dated 28.12.1999. This petition was filed in the year 2000 and no interim relief was granted to the petitioner. Private respondent No.3 has been working for more than 11 years as a part time sweeper. At such a belated stage, I am not inclined to interfere with the selection and appointment of private respondent No.3. Question of correctness and authenticity of the documents is left open. However, to meet the ends of justice respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment as a part time sweeper or on any other post in accordance with law. Petitioner belongs to schedule caste family and is perhaps living below the poverty line. Considering the peculiar facts of the instant case, it is expected of the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case sympathetically. Respondent No.2 shall take a decision positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 3 With these observations, present petition is disposed of.” 2. However, the fact of the matter is that, case of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 on 7.5.2011. 3. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala has strenuously argued that as per information obtained by his client through Right to Information Act, 27 posts of Part Time Sweeper were vacant on 5.7.2011. He then argued that the order dated 7.5.2011 is not in conformity with the judgment dated 6.12.2010. 4. Mr. J.K. Verma has brought to the notice of the Court Annexure R-II whereby decision was taken to fill up the posts of Sweepers by outsourcing and to declare the cadre of Sweepers as dying cadre in all the Government Departments. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner was interviewed alongwith one Mansa Devi on 13.1.2000. Learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as Part Time Sweeper or on any other post in accordance with law. Learned Single Judge has noted that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste 4 family and was living below poverty line. Case of the petitioner was directed to be considered sympathetically. 7. According to Mr. J.K. Verma, 27 posts of Part Time Sweepers have been abolished and the cadre has been declared dying cadre. It is evident from Annexure P-8 that 27 posts were lying vacant as on 5.7.2011. The decision to abolish the posts was taken only in sequel to order Annexure R-I1 dated 21.7.2011. The District Ayurvedic Officer has also informed the petitioner that the posts have been abolished only vide notification dated 21.7.2011. We are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered against the existing vacancies as per judgment dated 6.12.2010. 27 posts of Part Time Sweepers were available with effect from 6.12.2010 to 21.7.2011. Respondent No.2 has not taken into consideration that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category and her case was required to be considered sympathetically. In case the posts of Part Time Sweeper were not available in Ayurvedic Dispensary, Reuri, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, she could be adjusted/appointed in any nearby Ayurvedic Health Centre. 5 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-7 dated 7.5.2011 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as Part Time Sweeper within a period of four weeks in any of the Ayurvedic Health Centre in Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 1.12.2011 *awasthi*