IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 8338/2008 Decided on:30.11.2010 _____________________________________________ Smt. Kamla Devi …Petitioner. Versus Director (Primary Education) and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Shomidhar. Respondent-State decided to fill up the post of Part Time Water Carrier in all Government Primary Schools, including Government Primary School, Shomidhar, in the year 1998. Petitioner applied to the competent authority alongwith certificates. She was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 called for interview and she appeared in the interview in the month of January, 1999. However, the result was not declared and thereafter she was again called for interview in the month of June, 2000. The result was not declared. However, the fact of the matter is that respondent No.4 was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Shomidhar vide letter dated 19.3.2002. 2. Mr. L.N. Sharma has strenuously argued that the action of the respondent-State of considering the case of respondent No.4 alone under rule 12 of the Scheme notified on 27.7.2001 without considering the case of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that his client was called twice for interview. However, the result was not declared. He lastly contended that his client is 4th pass and is physically challenged to the extent of 24%. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Dilip Sharma have supported the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 5. Initially, the selection process was initiated by the respondent-State for filling up the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Shomidhar under the Scheme notified on 6.7.1996. No reasons have been supplied by the respondent-State in the reply why the results, pursuant to the interviews held in the year 1999 and 2000, were not declared. Once the process had been initiated, it should have been taken to its logical end. 6. Respondent No.4 submitted application to be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier under rule 12 of the Scheme dated 27.7.2001 pursuant to which she was asked to supply necessary documents vide letter dated 5.12.2001. She was offered appointment under rule 12 on 19.3.2002. It will be apt at this stage to take note of rule 12 of the Scheme notified on 27.7.2001, which reads thus: “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.” 7. A bare perusal of rule 12 of the Scheme makes it abundantly clear that it is meant primarily for widows, 4 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, petitioner is physically challenged to the extent of 24% and respondent No.4 is physically challenged to the extent of 30%. The Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was also required to be considered alongwith respondent No.4 for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Shomidhar. Public employment must be made strictly as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.4 was the only candidate, who had applied and has been offered appointment, without considering the case of the petitioner and similarly situate persons. Respondent-State was required to make the entire selection process transparent and fair by issuing public notice whereby the applications were to be invited for filling up the post of Part Time Water Carrier under rule 12 of the Scheme. It was not open to the respondent-State to make appointment for public service in covert manner. Petitioner has not been given opportunity to get her candidature considered under rule 12 of the Scheme 5 notified on 27.7.2001. Respondent-State after inviting the applications was supposed to prepare the merit list under rule 12 of the Scheme and the most suitable candidate was required to be appointed. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-9 dated 9.3.2002 is quashed and set aside. Respondent-State is directed to redo the entire selection process for filling up the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Shomidhar by advertising the post though confined to rule 12 of the Scheme within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment. Petitioner and respondent No.4 shall be permitted to participate in the selection process and till the selection process culminates, respondent No.4 shall be permitted to discharge her duties as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Shomidhar. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 30.11.2010 *awasthi*