IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4195 of 2010. Judgment reserved on:14.3.2011 Date of decision: 26.4.2011. Mrs.Gayatri Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for Respondents-State Mr.Ashish Verma, counsel for R-3. Mr.Kartar Singh, counsel for R-4. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner who was initially appointed as Mid Day Meal Worker in Government Primary School, Khathela, P.O. Shilli Baggi, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. on 1.9.2004 has challenged the order dated 8.6.2010 whereby her services were terminated. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Mid Day Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Meal Worker on 1.9.2004 in the aforesaid school. The services of the petitioner have been terminated but respondent No.4 has been retained and hence he has challenged the termination of his services. 3. The stand of the respondents is that as per the revised scheme only one Cook/Helper is to be appointed against the strength of 25 students and therefore services of one person had to be dispensed with and the Committee decided to dispense with the services of the petitioner due to the fact that her income was higher than that of respondent No.4. 4. On 12.5.2010 the Deputy Director, Primary Education issued a letter stating that there shall be no difference between cooks and helpers and they should all be treated equally. On 29.4.2010 the Deputy Director, Primary Education issued a letter stating that if the number of students in a school falls below 25 then only one cook will be kept in the school and the services of the senior 3 most cook shall be retained and the services of the junior most cook would be dispensed with. Basically the Department introduced the principle of ‘last come first go’ for terminating the services of the cooks. 5. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed earlier to respondent No.4 and therefore she was senior. However, respondent No.4 was retained only on the ground that the income of respondent No.4 was less than that of the petitioner. 6. Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that in view of the letter dated 29.4.2010, the School Management Committee could not go into the merits of the candidates and had to act strictly in accordance with the principle of ‘last come first go’ and the person who had last joined the school must be asked to go first. Mr.Kartar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that it is the school management which is running the 4 school and which is best suited to judge as to which cook should be kept to cook the mid day meal. He urges that the School Management Committee can go into other questions such as efficiency etc. to decide as to whose services should be dispensed with. 7. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr.Kartar Singh. The principle of ‘last come first go’ is a well established principle of service jurisprudence which has found statutory recognition in certain acts like the Industrial Disputes Act. In case this principle is not applied then there is danger of arbitrariness. One cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner has also been working in the school initially as a helper- cum-cook and later as Cook. The Government in its wisdom has taken a decision that principle of ‘last come first go’ has to be followed. It cannot be said that this principle is arbitrary. It applies across the board in all schools where there is reduction in the number of Cooks. Therefore, 5 I see no reason why the petitioner who had put in longer service should be asked to go first. 8. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the order of the School Management Committee terminating the services of the petitioner is set aside. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be retained in service and the services of the respondent No.4 be dispensed with by applying the principle of ‘last come first go’. The respondents are directed to take necessary action latest by 30.6.2011. No costs. April 26, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge