UMA RANI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE undisputed facts requiring adjudication in this writ petition are that the petitioner herein is widow of deceased Paras Ram, who was working as Fireman at Bilaspur. He died on 14th February, 2000. It is also undisputed that vide Annexure P -4 the petitioner has been offered appointment on compassionate grounds as Class -IV employee as is apparent/evidenced from this order. The case of the petitioner herein is that she was entitled to be considered and appointed against a Class -III post. For this purpose, the petitioner relies upon the communication addressed by The Commandant General Home Guards/Civil Defence Himachal Pradesh, Shimla to the petitioner stating that her case was recommended for being considered for the post of clerk on contract basis. The writ petition is resisted by the State primarily on the ground that (a) the petitioner was only a matriculate and as such could not be appointed against this post as the qualification of 10+2 was mandatory; (b) the petitioner herself accepted this post and cannot turn round by saying that she should and ought to be appointed against a Class -III post. In order to substantiate this plea, the State relies upon the instructions which have been issued by the Secretary (Personal) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Annexure R -3 to this petition. In particular, emphasis is placed on the fact that by this amendment in the instructions, it has been directed that the only persons possessing 10+2 will be considered for appointment against the post of clerks and steno -typist. This will also apply to appointments on compassionate grounds.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, 2006 (12) SCC 44 holding: