KANTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed a direction restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Gaddi , Tehsil Sujanpur with further direction that the respondents may be restrained from giving respondent No.4 appointment letter as Water Carrier in place of petitioner in Government Primary School, Gaddi. It has also been prayed that the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier.

(2.) THE further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the interview held on 19.07.2002, the respondent No.4 has been arbitrarily selected for appointment in place of petitioner as Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Gaddi, Tehsil Sujanpur. THE long services rendered by the petitioner as Water Carrier have not been considered. She has preferential claim over respondent No.4 in all respects. THE petitioner has relied on the policy decision Annexure A-6 of the Government which provides that Part Time Water Carrier appointed by PTA and who had worked up to December, 2000, are not to be replaced by fresh Part Time Water Carrier appointee. THE petitioner had been working as Part Time Water Carrier and her appointment was already approved by PTA of the school and in support of this contention, the petitioner has relied on Annexure A-4 dated 13.06.2002.

(3.) THE respondent No.4 has secured more marks and she has already joined. THE petitioner has failed to make out any case that the respondent No.4 has been wrongly selected and appointed. Moreover, the order dated 16.07.2007 indicates that one more candidate had secured 19.5 marks, whereas, the petitioner has secured only 19 marks. THE candidate, who had secured 19.5 marks, has not been impleaded as a party in the petition and for this reason the petition is not maintainable. THE respondent No.4 has specifically pleaded that the husband of the petitioner is in government job and her father-in-law is drawing pension from Army. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.