PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bhogra, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that since he has been appointed by the Gram Panchayat, he was required to be continued as Part Time Water Carrier and alternatively, he was required to be given preference for working in the same school from 10th May, 1992. He has relied upon Annexures A-4 and A-6.

(2.) The case of the respondent-State, in a nutshell, is that since the petitioner was not appointed by the Gram Panchayat, he was not 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. entitled for appointment under the Scheme framed by the State Government. It has further been averred by the respondent-State that the Selection Committee was constituted and it found respondent No.5 suitable for being appointed as Part Time Water Carrier.

(3.) Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the appointment of respondent No.5 is illegal and arbitrary. His main contention is that his client was required to be given preference over respondent No.5 after taking into consideration his experience with effect from 10.5.1992.