Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Mamta Devi @ Ranjna vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 20 December, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 4609 of 2011
Decided on : December 20, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smt. Mamta Devi @ Ranjna ................Petitioner
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ..........Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of
For the petitioner : Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General,
rt for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep Sharma, Judge:
By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s):
"i) That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the impugned office order dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure P-12) on the ground that the appointment of respondent no-4 does not fall within the ambit of clause -12 of the notification (Annexure P-13) and the same is the result of the mis-interpretation of said clause.
ii) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondent nos 1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Kapahra, District -Bilaspur H.P."
2. Perusal of the averments contained in the writ petition clearly suggests that the petitioner being aggrieved with the appointment of the respondent No.4, as Water Carrier in Government Senior ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:00 :::HCHP 2 Secondary School, Kapahra, has approached this Court by way of instant petition seeking reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. Petitioner by way of present petition alleged that respondent No. 4 could not be .
appointed as Water Carrier by the respondent-State under Clause 12 of the Guidelines/Notification dated 27.7.2001 because the respondent No.4 as well as her family members have huge landed property at village and in city i.e. Ghumarwin, whereas petitioner has no source of income as her of husband is unable to perform any job due to prolonged illness. Perusal of appointment letter, Annexure P-12, issued in favour of respondent No.4 rt clearly suggests that she was appointed by the respondent-State under Clause 12 of the guidelines issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No. EDN-C-B(2)-7/95 dated 27.7.2001, which reads as follows:
"12. COMPASSIONATE GROUND APPOINTMENT: -
The Govt. 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."
3. It is undisputed that aforesaid Clause 12 has been declared ultra vires by a Division Bench of this Court, meaning thereby that appointment in terms of aforesaid Clause 12 can not be held to be sustainable. Though the respondent-State has laid challenge to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court by way of SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but no stay has been granted by the Apex ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:00 :::HCHP 3 Court against judgment having been passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
4. Consequently, in view of the judgment having been rendered .
by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7498 of 2014 titled Mangla Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein Clause 12 has been declared ultra vires, present writ petition is allowed and the appointment of respondent No.4 vide Annexure P-12, is quashed and set aside.
of Respondent-State is at liberty to initiate fresh process for the selection to the post of Part Time Water Carrier at Government Senior Secondary rt School, Kapahra. However, it is made clear that till the time fresh selection is made, respondent No.4 shall be allowed to continue as she has been working there for a considerable time.
5. Pending applications are disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge December 20, 2016 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:00 :::HCHP