Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Punni Devi vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 2 July, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5268 of 2012.
.
Date of decision: 2.7.2015.
Smt. Punni Devi ...... Petitioner
Vs.
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Ms.
Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. Advocate
Generals with Ms. Parul Negi, Dy.
Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for
respondent No.5.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).
This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
i). That the wit in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Manjdhar, District Chamba, H.P. vide letter dated 4.5.2012 (Annexure P-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play.
ii). That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Manjdhar, District Chamba, H.P.
2. In the selection conducted for the post of Part Time Water Carrier, it was respondent No. 5 who on the basis of her merit Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:29:55 :::HCHP ...2...
was ordered to be selected. Petitioner was the next in merit and has sought quashing of respondent No.5 on the ground that she had .
wrongly been awarded 10 marks under the head "Distance from the School" because the residence of respondent No. 5 was more than 5 Kilometers from the school and as per recruitment scheme for the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier issued vide notification dated 25.7.2011, she under the head "Interview and Marks" only entitled to 2 marks.
3. This court on 4.12.2012 passed the following orders:-
"The main dispute in this case is with regard to the distance of the house of the private respondent from the school. The private respondent No.5 Shakuntla Devi alongwith her application for the post of Part Time Water Carrier had appended the certificate Annexure P-7, which is issued by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Nagali in which it has been stated that the distance of the house of private respondent Shakuntla Devi W/o Sh. Jagdish Kumar from Govt. Primary School, Majhdhar is approximately half kilometer. The petitioner has annexed a certificate Annexure P-5 issued by the Patwari concerned in which it is stated that the distance of the house of the private respondent from Govt. Primary School, Majhdhar is totally 5 KM, if one travels by road (4 KM) and walks on foot then one kilometer. It is also stated that by pedestrian foot path, the distance is approximately 2½ KM. This would make a lot of difference in the case. We, therefore, direct the Tehsildar, Banikhet to personally visit the house of the private respondent and file an affidavit in this regard by the next date stating what is the distance both by road as well as by the shortest foot path from the house of respondent No.5 Shakuntla Devi to Govt. Primary School, Majhdhar. List on 26.12.2012.
Copy dasti."
4. In compliance to the orders passed by this court, the Tehsildar, Dalhousie, District Chamba has filed his affidavit and para-3 thereof, which is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this petition, reads thus:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:29:55 :::HCHP...3...
"On foot (Pagdandi) is the shortest way between village Dhallan & Govt. Primary School Majhdhar. It is 2 Km (approximately). Second route is connected partially by bus and .
partially on foot. Initially, there is an on foot stretch of about 1 Km (approximately) to reach the point to board the bus. From this point busable road is 4 Km (approximately) and from here again on foot distance of 800 meters (approximately) is traveled to reach the school. Therefore, the total distance becomes 1 Km (on foot) + 4 Km (by bus) + 800m (again on foot). Thus total distance comes out to be 5.8 Km."
5. The details of the marks obtained by each of the candidate have been annexed as Annexure P-4 with the petition, wherein the petitioner and respondents have both been awarded 10 marks each for distance. The total marks obtained by the petitioner are 22, whereas the respondent No. 5 has been awarded 24 marks.
Now as per the scheme, even if it is assumed that house of respondent No. 5 is at a distance of 2 Kilometers, even then she still would be entitled to 8 marks and her total marks would still be the same. But then the petitioner admittedly has been working as a Mid Day meal worker since 1.3.2005 and, was therefore not entitled for being considered for the post in question, much-less, being appointed.
6. Similar issue has already been dealt in detail by this court in CWP No. 5018 of 2012 titled Smt. Bimla Devi vs. State of H.P. & ors. decided on 29.6.2015, wherein this court held as under:-
"7. It is not in dispute that the mode and manner of appointment of Part Time Water Carrier is governed by the notification issued by the Government on 25.7.2011 (Annexure P-3) wherein Clause-7 provides as follows:
"7. INTERVIEW AND MARKS:::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:29:55 :::HCHP
...4...
i) The selection committee shall judge the suitability of the candidates purely on merit. The Chairman of the committee will keep complete record of the selection process.
.
(ii) The selection committee shall hold interviews by calling all the eligible candidates.
(iii) Preference will be given to candidates who are from families without any member in Govt. service.
(iv) The selection will be purely specific to a particular school only.
i) In the interview marks shall be awarded to the candidates out of 30. The distribution of marks shall as under:
1. For candidates of village/town at distance:
a) Upto 1.5 Kms from school 10 marks
b) Upto 2 Kms from school 08 marks
c) Upto 3 Kms from school 06 marks
r d) Upto 4 Kms from school 04 marks
e) Upto 5 Kms from school 02 marks.
2. For candidates whose family have donated land for school. 05 marks
3. Candidates belonging to SC/ST/ 03 marks OBC/BPL.
4. Candidates belonging to unemployed 05 marks Families.
5. Interview/ Viva 07 marks Total : 30 marks."
8. It is evident from the perusal of Clause-7 (4) that it is the candidates belonging to unemployed families alone, who are entitled to 5 marks. But in case the select list (Annexure P-2) is seen, the petitioner has been given 5 marks ostensibly only for the reason that she belongs to an unemployed family. Whereas admittedly, she was already working as Mid Day Meal Worker and, therefore, could not have been considered to belonging to an unemployed family.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that in terms of Clause 7 (4) of the notification (Annexure P-3), the same applies only to the family members and not to the candidate herself. I am afraid and cannot agree with this contention of the petitioner as this would amount to defeat the very purpose of the scheme for which it has been enacted. The avowed object of the scheme is to ensure that only those candidates are awarded 5 marks where the candidate himself or his family members belong to unemployed families. In case the relevant clause in the notification is read in a manner as suggested by learned counsel for the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:29:55 :::HCHP ...5...
petitioner, it would only lead to an anomaly and an apparent absurdity which has to be avoided.
10. Since the petitioner is ineligible for being considered for .
appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in terms of the notification (Annexure P-3), she has no locus standi to challenge the selection of respondent No.4, whose selection has been duly supported by the official respondents."
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
July 2, 2015. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ),
(Hem) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:29:55 :::HCHP