DINESH KUMAR Vs. RAJO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, whereby appointment of the petitioner as part-time water carrier has been quashed for the reason that respondent No. 6 real uncle (Chacha) of the appellant, being President of School Management Committee (SMC), was a member of the Selection Committee, which interviewed the candidates including petitioner who were aspirants to the post of water carrier.

(2.) Main ground in the present appeal is that there is no evidence on record to establish that selection of the appellant was made under the influence of respondent No.6 and further that appellant is an orphan belonging to family of Below Poverty Line (BPL) and was appointed to the post in question in the year 2011 and learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter in hasty manner and without considering that disengagement of the appellant, after about six years, would render him jobless and without any source for his survival. Lastly, it is stated that now respondent No. 1(petitioner in the writ petition) has also been appointed as a cook in some other institution since 2016 and therefore, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by quashing the appointment of the appellant only for the reason that his real uncle was member of Selection Committee particularly when there is nothing on record to establish any favoritism by respondent No. 6 in favour of the appellant.

(3.) The fact stated in para 7 to the writ petition that respondent No. 6 Dharam Pal was member of the Selection Committee for conducting the interview whereby appellant has been selected and appointed as part time water carrier and the pedigree table Annexure P-3 placed on record to substantiate the relationship of appellant with respondent No. 6 Dharam Pal have not been disputed by the appellant.