Bimla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The petitioner, who has not selected as Part Time Water Carrier and has filed the present writ petition claiming the following substantive reliefs:

(i) The order dated 30.3.2012, Annexure P-1, passed by the respondents/DDEE, Kullu, respondent No. 3, may kindly be quashed and set aside after issuing a writ of certiorari.

(ii) The respondents particularly respondents No. 2 and 3 may kindly be directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner as per waiting list at No. 1 contained in Annexure P-2 after issuing a writ of mandamus.

(iv) The entire original record including Pariwar register/voter list and ration card etc. of Gram Panchayat, Bhumitir concerning respondent No. 4 in the case may kindly be summoned for the perusal of Hon''ble Court.

The post of Part Time Water Carrier was vacant in the office of the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Kullu and applications from eligible candidates were called for. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 appeared for the interview held on 16.2.2012 and it was the respondent No. 4, who is selected and appointed as Part Time Water Carrier.

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 in terms of Clause-3 of the criteria laid down for the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier, was not eligible as he was not the permanent resident of village/Gram Panchayat/Urban Local Body of the area in which the school was located where the vacancy of Part Time Water Carrier exists and, therefore, could not have been selected. It is further averred that respondent No. 4 had manipulated his residence certificate dated 22.11.2011 from President M.C. Kullu showing his residence to be temporarily that of House No. 23, Ward No. 6, whereas the respondent No. 4 was a permanent resident of Village Badehragran, P.O. Bhalyani, Gram Panchayat, Bhumtir, District Kullu as was proved on record with documents like character certificate, copy of BPL Pariwar Register issued by Gram Panchayat, Bhumtir.

The official respondents in their reply opposed the claim of the petitioner by supporting the selection of respondent No. 4. It was submitted that the certificate concerning the distance had been issued by Patwari Halqua which had been verified and counter-signed by Naib Tehsildar, Kullu in which it has been certified that respondent No. 4 was a resident of lower Dhalpur, Kullu, Ward No. 6, House No. 23 for the last 20 years and the school which was about 20 meters away from the office of respondent No. 3. It was further averred that though the petitioner had also produced her temporary residential certificate of Kullu, but she was a permanent resident of Village Peej, which was almost 15 KMs away from the school and the distance of the office of respondent No. 3 from her residence was about 750 meters and same marks had been awarded for distance for the category of ''distance'' to both the petitioner and respondent No. 4. It was also submitted that the petitioner had been working as Mid-day Meal Worker at Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Kullu and was therefore, ineligible for even being considered much less being appointed as a part time water carrier. The abstract of the marks awarded by the selection committee to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were also given and is reproduced hereinunder:

Petitioner/Respondent No. 4.

The respondent No. 4 filed his separate reply wherein preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed the material facts. The petitioner while filing the writ petition had suppressed the fact that she was working as Mid-day Meal Worker in Govt. Senior Secondary School (Boys), Kullu since 2.7.2008 and was therefore, estopped from filing the writ petition not only because of her act and conduct but also the provisions contained in Clause 7.3 of the notification issued by the State Government on 25.7.2011. It was submitted that replying respondent was residing in the house of Kuldeep Singh and his ration card which had earlier been issued in Village Brehragran had been transferred to the ration depot, Sarbari, Kullu. That apart, it is alleged that the petitioner had submitted a false BPL certificate which pertained to the year 2006 as the same was issued on 6.11.2006. The petitioner had submitted wrong addresses time and again.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

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:

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:

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.

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 petitioner, it would only lead to an anomaly and an apparent absurdity which has to be avoided.

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.

Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any. The parties are left to bear their own costs.