REKHA DEVI WD/O LATE SHRI PAWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P THROUGH ITS SECRETARY EDUCATION TO THE GOVT OF H P SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTERVIEWS for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Ghaith were held on 7.1.2012. Name of the petitioner was initially recommended for the post in question on 24.1.2012. The agreement was also entered into between the petitioner and President, School Management Committee on 28.1.2012. Petitioner joined her duties on 28.1.2012. Thereafter, vide letter dated 2.2.2012 addressed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jawali to the President, School Management Committee, name of respondent No.6 was recommended and the name of petitioner was kept at No.1 in the waiting list. Petitioner has assailed this order dated 2.2.2012 (Annexure P-7). 2. Mr. Naresh Kaul has vehemently argued that once the petitioner has been appointed and joined her Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? duties on 28.1.2012, Annexure P-7 dated 2.2.2012 could not be issued. He has also argued that the petitioner is more deserving candidate being widow vis-a-vis respondent No.6. He has also argued that his client's sister's father-in-law has donated the land and the petitioner was entitled to get 5 marks. He has further argued that respondent No.6 was not entitled to 5 marks since the land has been donated by his father and the family of respondent No.6 is residing separately since 2007. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Archana Dutt have supported the order dated 2.2.2012. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Selection process has been undertaken as per Annexure P-1 notification dated 25.7.2011. According to para 7 of the notification, the candidates whose families have donated land for school are entitled to 5 marks. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to mark-sheet Annexure R-4/A. It is clear from the mark-sheet that the petitioner has been awarded 22.0 marks and respondent No.6 has been awarded 26.0 marks. According to this mark-sheet, respondent No.6 is at first place and petitioner is at second place. Mr. Vikas Rathore and Ms. Archana Dutt have vehemently argued that typographical mistake has taken place while posting the marks from the mark- sheet, which led to issuance of letter dated 24.1.2012. According to them, typographical error has been corrected, which has lead to issuance of Annexure P-7 dated 2.2.2012. 6. The Court is of the considered view that the appointment letter could only be issued as per the merit list prepared by the duly constituted Selection Committee. In case an error has crept while posting marks that could be rectified by the Committee. 7. Mr. Naresh Kaul has also argued that there was over-writing/tempering with the mark-sheet. The Court has seen Annexure R-4/A. There is neither any over-writing nor any tempering in the marks awarded to the candidates. There was no need to issue separate notice to the petitioner since only the typographical mistake, which had crept in the record has been corrected by issuing a letter dated 2.2.2012. 8. Mr. Naresh Kaul has also argued that the petitioner's sister's father-in-law has donated the land. He has referred to Annexure P-2/H. This is only a certificate signed by Ram Singh, who is father-in-law of petitioner's sister. The land has been donated by the father of respondent No.6 by way of gift deed Annexure R-V for the construction of a school. According to para 7 of notification dated 25.7.2011 Annexure P-1, 5 marks are to be allotted to a candidate whose family has donated land for school. Father of respondent No.6 has donated the land and he would be covered under the definition of family. Petitioner's sister's father-in-law shall not be covered under the expression 'family'. The Court is of the view that the expression 'family' would include generally grand-father, father, mother, son, daughter, sister, grand-son, brother while interpreting sub-para (ii) of para 7 of the notification dated 25.7.2011. 9. Neither any will nor any gift has been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate that the land was ever donated by the petitioner's sister's father-in-law certificate Annexure R-2/H. Even if there is a separation of the family of respondent No.6, as argued by Mr. Naresh Kaul, his father could still donate the land for the construction of School. Thus, there is no illegality committed by the Members of the Selection Committee by awarding 5 marks to respondent No.6 and denying the same to the petitioner. Respondent No.6 also belongs to B.P.L family as per Annexure R-6/3. 10. Mr. Naresh Kaul has also argued that family of respondent No.6 is an affluent family. However, suffice it to say that there is no minimum income criteria prescribed under the scheme dated 25.7.2011. 11. Petitioner is a widow. She has lost her husband on 17.10.2010. She has two children having 8 and 5 years of age, who are dependant on her. Though this Court has found that there is no illegality in the issuance of letter dated 2.2.2012 (Annexure P-7), but at the same time, petitioner is also very needy person and she needs support and succor from the respondent- State. In view of this, case of the petitioner is required to be considered by the respondent-State under para 12 of the scheme to mitigate the hardship to be faced by her in the eventuality of her termination. She has to support two children, who are 8 and 5 years old. She also belongs to B.P.L. family. She is matriculate. No member of her family is employed in Government/Semi Government organization. Her income is less than Rs. 11,000/- per annum as per certificate Annexure P-2/E. 12. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. However, respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in the vicinity of Government Primary School, Ghaith under para 12 of the Scheme notified on 25.7.2011, being widow, within a period of four weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.