Mani Devi vs State Of H.P. & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

Mr.  Pushpinder Jaswal,  learned  Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“a) That Writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside appointment letter dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) issued by Respondent No.8

b) That Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to re-engage the services of the petitioner on the post of Mid Day Meal Worker in Government Senior Secondary School Shandal in terms of notification dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure P-3).”

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as a Mid Day Meal Helper in Government Primary School Shandal, Tehsil Rampur-Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., in the month of April, 2007. She continued to serve there till June, 2010, when her services were dispensed with by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter, the respondents again initiated the process for appointment of Mid Day Meal Helper in the same school and the private respondent stands selected therein ignoring the fact that in terms of communication dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner had a right of re-employment/ re-engagement. Learned counsel submitted that the reason as to why the services of the petitioner were dispensed with in the year 2010 was shortfall in the number of students, then in light of instructions (Annexure P-3) the petitioner had the right of re-engagement. On this short count he submits that present petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to re-engage the petitioner.

Learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel appearing for the private respondent have opposed the petition.

Learned Additional Advocate General argued that fresh interview was conducted in terms of the Policy governing appointment of Mid Day Meal Worker in the year 2022. The private respondent was selected as Cook-cum-Helper on merit. He further stated that the petitioner neither applied for the post in issue nor she appeared in the interview. He submitted that the petitioner otherwise is not entitled for the relief prayed for, as the instructions being relied upon by the petitioner were received later in time and the recruitment was conducted strictly on the basis of the merit of the candidates who participated in the process.

Learned counsel for the private respondent has also adopted the reply filed by the State.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

The grievance of the petitioner as mentioned hereinabove against the act of the respondents, in terms whereof, she has not been re-engaged as a Mid Day Meal Worker in the School concerned and the private respondent stands appointed on the basis of fresh selection process. The case of the petitioner is based on the instructions (Annexure P-3), dated 23.02.2022.

This Court is of the considered view that the instructions being relied upon by the petitioner do not give any protection to her. A perusal of Annexure P-3 demonstrates that in terms of these instructions, two additional terms and conditions I.e. “f and g” were added against Clause-19 in the approved Norms and Guidelines for hiring of services of Cook-cum-Helper under ‘Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Nirman (PM Poshan)” which was earlier known as “National Programme For Mid Day Meal”.

Now incidently, alongwith the petition, the Guidelines/Norms for engaging of Cook-cum-Helper under Mid Day Meal Scheme are appended. These Guidelines are dated 08.12.2011. Meaning thereby that the amendments which have been incorporated in Clause-19 on 23.02.2022 or in the Guidelines which came into existence on 08.12.2011. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a Mid Day Meal Worker in the year 2007 and she was dis-engaged in the month of June, 2010. In other words, the petitioner was not engaged in terms of Guidelines (Annexure P-2). Therefore, neither these Guidelines come to the rescue of the petitioner nor any amendment incorporated therein, for the reason that when the petitioner was not appointed in terms of said Guidelines (Annexure P-2), obviously any amendment subsequently carried out in these Guidelines cannot grant any protection to the petitioner. The protection of these Guidelines can be sought only by those who were engaged under these Guidelines.

Besides this, as the process of recruitment subsequently undertaken was open to eligible candidates, the petitioner not having participated therein cannot assail the appointment of the private respondent. Otherwise also, the disengagement of the services of the petitioner was in the year 2010, whereas the process subsequently undertaken was in the year 2022. There is a gap of twelve years in the dis-engagement and the subsequent fresh engagement through fresh recruitment.

Accordingly, in light of above discussion, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.