Pawna Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (I) to (iii):

I) That the appointment of Respondent No. 4, Smt. Phulan Devi, may be quashed/set aside by directingthe Respondents No. 1 to 3 to take the joining ofapplicant in her place in Government PrimarySchool, Thaliar, P.O Naura, Block Bhawarna, TehsilPalampur, Distt-Kangra.

ii) That the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may kindly bedirected to regularize the services of the applicant as Water carrier in view of the scheme notified by ANNEXURE A/4 and appointment letter ANNEXDURE A/5.

iii) That the Respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to pay the applicant her back wages with interest.

In reply, on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3, it is stated as under:

It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant Smt. Pawana Devi was offered appointed by the Respondent No. 3 (District Primary Education Officer, Kangra) vide order No. ES-Kangra/P.E-7/96 dated 20/1/97, but she fails to join as such in G.P.S. Thalial Block Bhwarna Distt. Kangra till 4/02/97, when the Selection Committee seleted the Respondent No. 4 Smt. Phulan Devi who had already been working in G.P.S. Thalial.

In supplementary affidavit dated 24th June, 2005 filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken vide paras 2 and 4:

That in this regard it is submitted that as perthe certificate issued by the Head Teacher Sh. Duni Chand which has been supplied by the Block PrimaryEducation Officer, Bghawarna (Kangra) that the Respondent No. 4 Smt. Phoolan Devi had been working asPart Time Water Carrier in the school from 6/96 to 30th September/1999. The copy of the certificate of the HeadTeacher of Sh. Duni Chand is annexed and the same is marked as Annexure R-1. However, as per the attendance register of the school the Respondent No. 4Smt. Phoona Devi had been shown working as Part TimeWater Carrier from sept/1997. The copy of the attendance register for the month of September and Oct/1997 showing this fact is annexed and the same is marked as Annexure R/2 & 3 respectively and the annexure R/1 is also signed by Sh. Duni Chand Head Teacher. But there is no record in the school that the applicant was being working in the said school since1995 which is show in annexure A/1 i.e. the certificate of experience issued by Head Teacher and the PradhanGram Panchayat Naura and annexure A/3 issued by the same Pradhan does not prove any truth without anyrecord of the school as per the entry in the attendanceregister of the school.

It is further submitted that the applicant videorder dated 20.1.1997 i.e. annexure A/5 was appointedas Part Time Water Carrier in the said school. However, she did not join her duties in the school. Thereafter afresh selection was made by the selection committeeduly constituted for the purpose and the selection committee selected the Respondent No. 4 Part Time Water Carrier and on the recommendation of the selection committee Respondent No. 4 was appointed asPart Time Water Carrier in the school and the name of the applicant was kept in waiting list which is clear fromthe copy of the selection list duly supplied by the BDO Bhawanara. The copy of the same is also annexed and ismarked as Annexure R/IV.

In yet another supplementary affidavit filed on dated 16th May, 2007 the stand on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 3 vide para 2 is to the following effect:

That in this regard it is submitted that as per theinformation provided by the BEEO Bhawarana he hasstated that the applicant did not work as honarary PartTime Water Carrier in GPS Thalial, P.O Naura Tehsil,Palampur, District Kangra (H.P) prior to the issuance ofthe appointment order of Part Time Water Carrier by theDistrict Pry Eduction Officer, Kangra on dated 20.1.1997 i.e. Annexure A/5 as such the appointment order was notgiven to the applicant in view of the condition laid downby the District Pry Education Officer, Kangra while forwarding the letter dated 20.1.97 to the BPEO Bhawarana i.e. Sr. No. 3 in which it has specifically beenmade clear that if any candidate is working for more thantwo years and above the appointment may not be givenand the matter may be sent back for further directions. In this regard, it is further submitted that one Smt. Phoolan Devi was already working on honarary basis inthe school for more than two years that is why theappointment was not given to the applicant. However, it is further submitted that the selection process was alsofollowed by the replying Respondent for the post of PartTime Water Carrier for the school but the appointmentwas offered to the Smt. PhoolanDevi (Respondent No. 4)by giving her priority as she was already working on theschool on honorary basis for which selection process wasfollowed. The copy of the same has already been annexedwith the supplementary affidavit filed earlier in view ofthis Hon''ble Tribunal order dated 20.12.2004. Hence, thepresent OA deserves to be dismissed on this score alone.

In view of the above, it is manifest that self contradictory standshave been taken on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3. However, the fact remains that it was the Petitioner who was first appointed as Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Thalial, vide office order dated 20.1.1997, Annexure A-5. A perusal of this document would go to show that there is a hand written endorsement on the same at the left side margin on the top to the effect that "All the Applications have been sent to SDM, Palampur for scrutiny" signed by BPEO, Bhawanara and is dated 12.2.1997. However, the stand taken on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3 is that since the Petitioner failed to join duty, private Respondent No. 4 was appointed in her place. However, there is no documentary proof in support of this assertion either in the nature of a notice issued to the Petitioner intimating that since she had failed to join, appointment would be offered to the next candidate or any other official communication to this effect.

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, it is apparent that the Petitioner who was duly selected for appointment as Water Carrier was left out and in her place private Respondent No. 4 was given appointment. However, it is stated at the bar that private Respondent No. 4 who has since been regularized in service is going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on and w.e.f. 31.12.2010.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to Respondents No. 1 to 3/competent authority to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Government primary School, Thalial, on and w.e.f. 1.1.2011 against the likely vacancy arising out of retirement of private Respondent No. 4, along with consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with law and justice.

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any.