JEEVA RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 854 of 2003, decided on 7th April, 2995 whereby the original application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner was offered appointment as a part time water carrier on compassionate ground under Rule 12 of the Part Time Water Carriers Scheme in Government High School, Bari. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner joined as such on 15th March, 2003. On 16th April, 2003, i.e. just one month after the petitioner had joined, an order was passed by the Head Master, GHS, Bari, District Kinnaur which reads as follows:-

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the State Administrative Tribunal. The State in its reply filed before the Administrative Tribunal took the stand that since the applicant had been appointed as a part time water carrier with the prior approval of the government and in the meantime, the government cancelled the orders of appointment and terminated the services of the applicant-petitioner, the order referred to above, was passed. In the reply filed before the Tribunal, no grounds were stated as to why the order in question was passed. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that since the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds, the competent authority had exercised its discretion in offering appointment to him and, therefore, the same could be withdrawn later on on administrative ground. Consequently, the O.A. of the applicant-petitioner was dismissed. This order of the Tribunal is under challenge before us.

(3.) SURPRISINGLY , in the present case, we find that before the Tribunal no reasons were stated as to why the order of appointment was cancelled. It would be pertinent to mention in this behalf that before the Tribunal, the original file had been produced and the order passed on the said file has been quoted by the Tribunal in its order dated 9th April, 2003. Even this order does not state what is the reason, for canceling the appointment of the petitioner. The reasons have now been supplied in the reply filed in the present writ petition. In the reply, now filed before this court, it is stated that in fact the petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment as a part time water carrier in terms of Clause 12 of the Scheme.