IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7536/2008 Decided on:22.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Sheela 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 petitioners : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). A detailed order was passed on 6.5.2009, which reads as thus: “The petitioner had never represented that her candidature be considered against the category of widow. In fact, as per the pleadings of the parties, her case was that she is destitute lady since her husband has failed to look-after her. A complaint was filed by public representative to the concerned authorities that the petitioner is residing with her husband. However, it has also come in the report when the record was perused that her husband was not looking after her properly. The Gram Panchayat has also passed a resolution as per the record that the petitioner was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 being ignored by her husband and he was not staying with her. He was also not paying money to defray the expenses of the household. On the basis of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, the Block Primary Education Officer has also sent the communication to the higher authorities. No action whatsoever was taken thereupon. It was necessary for the department to look into the matter dispassionately. As noticed above, she was destitute lady in need of job. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner could not be offered appointment since a complaint was lodged against her. In case there was any complaint against the petitioner, she was required to be heard. The department could not take unilateral decision. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee and by now she should have been offered the appointment. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General prays for and is allowed one week’s time to do the needful. List after one week. Copy Dasti.” 2. Thereafter the matter was listed on 15.5.2009 and was adjourned at the request of learned Senior Additional Advocate General for 18.5.2009. Thereafter the matter came up before the Court on 18.5.2009 and was adjourned at the request of learned Additional Advocate General for 19.5.2009. Thereafter, learned Senior Additional Advocate General sought two weeks further time on 19.5.2009. The fact of the matter is that till date neither order dated 6.5.2009 has been implemented nor learned Senior Additional Advocate General has sought any instructions. Accordingly, in these circumstances, order dated 6.5.2009 is 3 treated as judgment and the respondents are directed to implement the same within a period of four weeks after the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 3. In view of above observations/directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 22.6.2010 *awasthi*