Janki Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

i) That the entire record pertaining to the present case may be summoned.

ii) That the appointment of respondent No.6 vide Annexure A-1 dated 9.5.2002 be declared null and void.

iii) That the respondents be directed to appoint applicant as Part-time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School-Baihli-III.

In the reply at paragraph 3, it is stated as follows:-

That the original application as filed by the applicant is not maintainable as the respondent No.6 has been appointed under Rule-12 of the policy and the Govt. have power to appoint any candidate as part time water carrier under rule 12 of the recruitment scheme without following the selection process, if the candidate are widow, woman deserted by their husband, or otherwise destitute, handicapped person or otherwise candidate falls below the poverty line as defined by the rural development Department from time to time.

It is also stated in the reply that the private respondent had fulfilled all the requisite requirements for the post of part-time Water Carrier in terms of the policy. Still further, it is stated in the reply that there was no understanding with the petitioner that she would be appointed as part-time Water Carrier.

There is no rejoinder, as well. In case, the petitioner has still any grievance left or any dispute with regard to the factual position, as stated in the reply, it will be open to her to approach the third respondent, in which case the third respondent will take appropriate action in accordance with law within another four months.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.