Jagdish Chand vs State of H.P. and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—One post of Part Time Water Carrier fell vacant in Government Primary School, Majheothi in the month of June, 2008. The petitioner submitted an application to the President of the concerned Gram Panchayat. However, the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Majheothi vide Annexure P-2. Petitioner''s disability has been assessed to be 40%. He has also placed on record BPL certificate. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 was not at all eligible to be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Majheothi. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the respondent No. 4 owns land as per the revenue record placed on record. Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Part Time Water Carrier is illegal, arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate, have supported the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Part Time Water Carrier vide Annexure P-2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

An amendment was carried out in the old Scheme vide notification, dated 12.09.2007, whereby the following candidates are eligible for consideration under Rule-12 of the Scheme:

(i) Widow

(ii) Women deserted by their husbands or other destitute.

(iii) A handicapped person.

(iv) An orphan and a person living in extreme indigent circumstances.

Respondent-State has placed on record Annexure R/1, whereby it is certified that respondent No. 4 is living in indigent circumstances. This certificate was issued on 22.08.2008. Petitioner has not challenged the validity of the certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 4 on 22.08.2008. The certificate, dated 22.08.2008, Annexure R/1 has been issued on the basis of an inquiry by the S.D.M.

Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the income of respondent No. 4 is more than Rs. 1 lac in view of the revenue record placed on record. According to him, the respondent No. 4 has raised an apple orchard. However, no tangible evidence has been placed on record to establish the income of respondent No. 4 by the petitioner. He also argued that his client is handicapped person and belongs to B.P.L. family. The respondent No. 4, as discussed hereinabove, is living in extreme indigent circumstances. According to condition No. (iv), an orphan and a person living in extreme indigent circumstances can be considered for appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier. An orphan and a person living in indigent circumstances are two different categories. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.