Smt. Reena Kanwar vs State of H.P.

Deepak Gupta, J.—The petitioner had earlier also filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Dhakriana, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. One of us (Deepak Gupta, J) had disposed of the said writ petition on 22.11.2010 in the following terms:-

All these are highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in writ proceedings. No doubt, Rule 12 gives power to the Government to make appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier without following the selection process, but in case where there is more than one applicant who has applied for appointment under Rule 12 then in my considered view, the State Government is duty bound to see who is the more meritorious candidate. Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides that every citizen of this country is entitled to equal treatment under the law. If two or more candidates eligible under Rule 12 apply for the post of Part Time Water Carrier then the Government though it may not follow the regular process of appointment must see the respective merits of the candidates and select the most deserving candidate amongst themselves.

I have however, no doubt in my mind that if the Hon''ble Chief Minister had been apprised that there were two applicants for the same post, he may or may not have taken the same decision. Approval on each noting has been obtained without apprising the Hon''ble Chief Minister about the fact that there was another applicant applying under Rule 12 for the same post. Therefore, I feel that the Additional Secretary to the Chief Minister should after placing all appropriate facts before the Hon''ble Chief Minister obtain fresh orders in this behalf. Needful be done within one month from today.

Thereafter, the Additional Secretary to the Hon''ble Chief Minister placed certain facts before him whereupon the Hon''ble Chief Minister passed a detailed order. The relevant portion of the noting file reads as follows:

Commissioner, Solan is placed below for the consideration of the Hon''ble chief Minister for a fresh decision. Details of Shri Narender Kumar and Smt. Reena Kumari are given below:

Shri Narender Kumar

Smt. Reena Kumari

60% handicapped

Widow

Produced low income certificate

BPL family

Unmarried

Having two school going children

Belongs to backward class

Belongs to high cast

Entirely dependent on father for his survival

Physically fit, hale and hearty

Unable to do physical work/ labour hence unfit for agricultural occupation

Occupationnis agriculture

Father is owner of 25.4 bigha land

Father-in-law owns 44 bighas of land. He retired as Inspector from HRTC and owns a house in Nalagarh

Have obtained financial assistance from Government of Rs. 24,000/-for the construction of house under Atal Awas Yojna a few years back.

Have been sanctioned financial assistance of Rs. 48,000/- from Govt. under Atal Awas Yojna recently for the construction of the house.

Recommended by Gram Panchayat and Director Education

Recommended by Gram Panchayat and Director Education.

Submitted for orders.

Sd/- Addl. Secretary to CM 25.2.2011

Hon''ble Chief Minister:

Since Shri Narender Kumar is physically handicapped and unable to cultivate his father''s land, and also dependent on his father, he has been appointed P.T.W.C. earlier, therefore, he may be allowed continue as such.

Sd/-CM 26.2.2011

From a perusal of the order passed by Hon''ble Chief Minister it is apparent that he had gone through the entire file and has come to a conclusion which cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse or capricious. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.