IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.7887 of 2008(OA No.2017/2001 Reserved on 19.08.2009 Decided on: August 20, 2009. Ashwani Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents No. 1 to 4. : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, for respondent No.5. KULDIP SINGH , JUDGE OA No. 2017 of 2001 was filed in H.P. Administrative Tribunal which has been abolished and the cases of the Tribunal have been transferred to this Court. After transfer OA No. 2017/2001, has been registered in this Court as CWP(T) NO. 7887 of 2008. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai in October, 1997. The petitioner was not paid any salary but was assured that in future his services would be regularized. The appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time till 12.05.2000. The petitioner was appointed as part time water Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… carrier keeping in view the fact that he had no source of income and he belongs to the vicinity of the school where he was appointed part time water carrier. 3. On 28.01.1999, the petitioner was called for interview for the post of water carrier (part time) in Government Primary School, Talai, by respondent No. 4 and the petitioner was interviewed but his result was not declared nor appointment letter was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations including representation to the Chief Minister but no action was taken by the authorities. In the meantime, the petitioner on a visit to the Office of respondent No.4 had come to know that respondent No.5 had been issued appointment letter on 12.07.2001 for the appointment of part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai. The respondent No.4 had selected respondent No. 5 all of sudden without calling the petitioner for interview and without taking into consideration the past service of the petitioner which he had rendered to the department. The appointment of respondent No.5 as part time water carrier is illegal. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of appointment letter dated 12.07.2001 of respondent No.5 appointing her part time water carrier with the further prayer that the services of the petitioner may be ordered to be regularized on the post of part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai. 4. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have contested the petition by filing joint reply. It has been pleaded by the respondents No. 1 to 4 …3… that for the appointment of respondent No.5, recommendation was made under Rule 12 of “Anshkaleen Jalvahak Yojna-2001” on compassionate ground by the Government as provided in Rule 12 of the Yojna. The petitioner was engaged by Parent Teachers Association on voluntarily basis without any honorarium and it was temporary arrangement till the regular appointment of water carrier. The Government can appoint any candidate on compassionate ground without following selection process under Rule 12 if the candidate is a widow, women deserted by her husband or otherwise, destitute handicapped person and if the candidate falls below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time. The result of interview dated 28.01.1999 was not declared and therefore, question of appointment of petitioner on the basis of interview dated 28.01.1999 does not arise. The respondent No. 5 Smt. Bhago Devi being a widow has been appointed as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai. She belongs to I.R.D.P and Scheduled Caste and having no family member in the Government service, therefore, the appointment of Smt. Bhago Devi is legal and justified. 5. The respondent No. 5 has also contested the petition by filing reply in which she has taken preliminary objections of maintainability, delay and laches and locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition. On merits, it has been pleaded that services of the petitioner were terminated on 01.04.1999 which he was earlier rendering on voluntarily basis. After terminating the services of the …4… petitioner one Rattani Devi was appointed as part time water carrier on 24.03.2001 to 19.04.2001. She also left the job and the post was lying vacant. The respondent No.5 has pleaded that she had applied for appointment of part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai against the post which was lying vacant since long. It is the case of the respondent No. 5 that she has been legally appointed as part time water carrier under Rule 12 of the Scheme. 6. The respondent No. 5 was appointed as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai with the prior approval of the Government under Rule 12 of the Government of Himachal Pradesh Education Department Notification No. EDN- HMR(PRY)E-II(PTWC Apptt) 2001/3465 dated 12.07.2001. The petitioner has projected his case that he was interviewed on 28.01.1999 for the post of part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai but despite his interview neither the result was declared nor he was appointed as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai. The case of the respondents is that under Rule 12 of the Scheme, there is a provision for compassionate appointment for certain category of persons. The respondent No.5 fulfilled the eligibility provided under Rule 12 of the Scheme, she applied for the appointment of part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai. The respondent No. 5 was ultimately appointed as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Talai on 12.07.2001 with the approval of the Government . The petitioner has not assailed Rule …5… 12 of the Scheme which provides compassionate appointment for certain category of persons as part time water carrier. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 does not fulfill the eligibility provided in Rule 12. In absence of challenge to Rule 12 or questioning the eligibility of respondent No. 5 for appointment under Rule 12 of the Scheme, no relief can be granted to the petitioner simply because the petitioner had appeared in the interview for the post of part time water carrier. Mere by putting appearance in the interview no legal right for appointment as part time water carrier has been created in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for quashing the appointment of respondent No.5 as part time water carrier and simultaneously, for a direction for appointment of the petitioner as part time water carrier. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge August 20, 2009 *BRB*