Ratu Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following reliefs:-

(ii) That the appointment of respondent No. 4 as part time Water Carrier may please be quashed.

(iii) That the petitioner may please be appointed as part time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School w.e.f. 17.8.2007 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of wages with interest, regularization and seniority etc.

(iv) An F.I.R. on the basis of Annexure P-11 may please be ordered to be registered against the accused persons.

It is not in dispute that private respondent Smt. Kanta Devi was appointed as a part time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Karshouli, P.O. and Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P., on 2.6.2007. Her appointment undisputedly was in terms of Clause 12 of the Scheme/Policy framed by the State, which reads as under:-

Compassionate Ground Appointment

The Govt. will have the power to appoint any candidate as part time water carrier on compassionate ground without following the selection process if the candidates are widows, women deserted by their husbands, or otherwise destitute handicapped persons and if the candidates falls below the poverty line, as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time.

The minimum disability prescribed, entitling a person to be appointed in terms of the Policy, is 40%.

Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel has invited my attention to the medical certificates (Annexure P-9 and P-10), from which it is evidently clear that percentage of disability stands interpolated. Noticeably, State has filed its affidavit disclosing that on the basis of such certificates, F.I.R. No. 116 of 2011 dated 1.11.2009 stands registered at Police Station, Gohar, under the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code against the private respondent as also her husband.

In this petition, private respondent has not been able to explain the authenticity of her disability certificate (Annexure P-10). As such, under the given facts and circumstances, private respondent''s disability, being less than the prescribed criteria and thus having entailed disqualification under Clause 3 of the Policy, her selection as a part time Water Carrier needs to be quashed. In so far as the other prayers of the petitioner are concerned, noticeably F.I.R. already stands registered.

The petition is disposed of with a further direction to the competent authority, to consider the case of present petitioner, alongwith similarly situated persons, for appointment as a part time Water Carrier in the school in question. Needless to add, respondents shall positively take such decision within a period of three weeks from today.

Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the private respondent disputes petitioner''s eligibility, which fact is seriously refuted by Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel. The authorities shall also look into this aspect.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Copy dasti.