SATYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated September 4, 2002 appointing respondent No.5 and ignoring his claim for appointment as a Water Carrier. Therefore, he has filed this Original Application seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The respondents No.1 to 3 and 4 have resisted the application by raising preliminary objections.

(3.) The consistent stand taken by respondents No. 1 to 3 is that the selection of respondent No.5 has been male on the recommendation of the duly constituted committee for the purpose under the Chairmanship of the S.D.O. (c) of the area concerned as provided under the instruction/guidelines issued by the State Government regarding the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in the Education Department. As such the assertion of the applicant is based on wrong facts and information as is evident from the reply and as such is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The respondent No.4 has also justified the action of respondents for offering the appointment to respondent No.5.