(1.) PETITIONER has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Mid Day Meal Worker in Government Middle School, Kakrotighatta, District Chamba. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Cook in Government Middele School, Kakrotighatta, District Chamba in the month of June, 2008. She has been prevented by the Headmaster of the School from working as a Cook w.e.f. 03.03.2009. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the appointment of respondent No. 3 is arbitrary. According to him, once the petitioner has started working, the respondent No. 3 could not be engaged as Mid Day Meal Worker.
(2.) MR . Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 have strenuously argued that the petitioner herself has abandoned the job on 03.03.2009 and in these circumstances, respondent No. 3 was appointed on the basis of resolution dated 29.05.2009
(3.) IT is categorically stated in the reply that the petitioner remained absent w.e.f. 03.03.2009. She was requested orally to resume her duties. She was also served with a notice, to which she never filed any reply. It is in these circumstances that the Management was left with no alternative, but to offer appointment to respondent No. 3 as Mid Day Meal Worker in Government Middele School, Kakrotighatta, District Chamba vide resolution dated 29.05.2009. Petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder to the averments contained in the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 5. It is apparent that the petitioner was 3 not interested to work as Mid Day Meal Worker since she remained absent w.e.f. 03.03.2009 without any cogent reasons. Consequently, there is no illegality in the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Mid Day Meal Worker on 29.05.2009 in Government Middele School, Kakrotighatta, District Chamba. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.