IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.8621/2008 Decided on:13.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Savitri Devi. ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner lost her husband on 2.11.2001. She submitted application to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for considering her candidature for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bhompher (Dungyani). The same was forwarded by the Hon’ble Chief Minister to the District Education Officer. He forwarded the same to the Block Primary Education Officer on 20.6.2002. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that since she being widow ought to have been considered for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Bhompher (Dungyani) under clause 12 of the scheme notified on 27.7.2001. Her further case is that father of respondent No. 4 is employed on daily wage basis as Beldar in the Forest Department and his mother is also Member of B.D.C. 2. Mr. V.D. Khidta has strenuously argued that even while appointing persons under clause 12 of the scheme notified on 27.7.2001, the candidature of all the eligible candidates is required to be considered. According to him, the candidature of the petitioner was also required to be considered, particularly, when she had submitted an application to the concerned authorities. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Vishal Panwar have supported the appointment of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bhompher (Dungyani). 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Respondent-State has framed a scheme and the same was notified on 27.7.2001. Clause 12 whereof reads thus: 3 “The Government will have the power to appoint any candidate as part time water carrier on compassionate ground without following the selection process if the candidates are widows, women deserted by their husbands, or otherwise destitute handicapped persons and if the candidates falls below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time.” 6. A bare perusal of rule 12 of the Scheme makes it abundantly clear that it is meant primarily for widows, women deserted by their husbands, or otherwise destitute, handicapped persons and if the candidates fall below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time. In the instant case, the petitioner lost her husband on 2.11.2001. She had submitted application alongwith necessary certificates, including copy of IRDP certificate. Petitioner’s house is also situated within the radius of 100 meters from the school in question. Respondent-State has appointed respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bhompher (Dungyani) without considering the candidature of the petitioner. His father is already working in the Forest Department as daily wage Beldar. His mother is member of B.D.C. In these circumstances, he cannot be treated as destitute person. Clause 12 of the scheme is primarily meant to mitigate the 4 hardships being faced by the categories mentioned therein. The Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought to have been considered; particularly when she had submitted the application. Respondent No.4 has been considered and appointed as Part Time Water Carrier and he has joined his duties on 9.5.2002 pursuant to Annexure R-4/C dated 8.5.2002 though belonging to affluent family. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure R-4/C dated 8.5.2002 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to redo the entire selection process by considering the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 strictly as per clause 12 of the Scheme afresh. The process be completed within a period of ten weeks from today. Till then, respondent No.4 shall be permitted to discharge his duties. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 13.12.2010 *awasthi*