Rajinder Singh vs The Government of Himachal Pradesh and Parents Teacher Association

Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.—Petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the relief that his termination from the post of Cook vide resolution Annexure P-4 be held to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It has also been claimed that respondent No. 3 was not at all authorized to head the Parents Teacher Association and also that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook under the Mid Day Meal Scheme. In the reply filed by the respondents-State, they have pleaded that though as per the Mid Day Meal Policy, only three cooks were to be employed, but the Committee had wrongly engaged four Cooks w.e.f. 1.7.2008, without passing any resolution. Thus, it has been pleaded that one Cook was to be retrenched as per the norms. The Committee passed the resolution to retrench the services of the petitioner instead of respondent No. 4 since respondent No. 4 belongs to the same Panchayat and his ancestors had also donated three biswas of land to the School. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner belongs to other Panchayat which is about 35 kms. away from the School. In para 2 of the preliminary submissions, it has also been pleaded by the respondents-State that there are 202 students studying in the Primary School and as per the norms, only three workers/helpers/cooks were to be engaged. However, in para 1 of the preliminary submissions, they have pleaded that the norms are that in case the enrolment of students is in between 201 to 300, four Cooks-cum-Helpers are to be appointed.

In view of the above reply of the respondents-State, the number of students had crossed 200 and according to the norms, four Cooks could be appointed. This question shall be examined by the Parents Teacher Association i.e. respondent No. 3 and in case, as per the norms, four persons were to be engaged as Cooks, the case of the petitioner and other eligible persons, who apply for the post, after due advertisement and following the due procedure, shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by respondent No. 3 within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before respondent No. 3. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.