GAURAV THAKUR Vs. PREM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment dated 26.06.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 206 of 2013 is under challenge in this appeal. The controversy as brought to the Court lies in a narrow compass, as we have only to consider that the engagement of someone as Mid Day Meal Worker under the scheme, Annexure A-1 to the appeal is a service in the Government or not. However, before coming to the point in issue, it is desirable to take note of the facts, in a nutshell.

(2.) The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.6') and respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as the 'writ-petitioner') both belong to village Sarad Lohari Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. There was a vacancy of Part-time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Sarad Dogri, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. The applications to fill up the said vacancy were invited from the eligible candidates. The writ-petitioner and respondent No.6 both being eligible had submitted their applications and were interviewed on 23.3.2011 by a Selection Committee comprising S.D.O(Civil) concerned, Headmaster of the school and the President, School Management Committee. Respondent No.6 having secured 24 marks as per the criteria prescribed and also on the basis of personal interview was selected and appointed as Water Carrier in the school. The appointment letter dated 27.2.2012 is Annexure R-4 to the reply filed in the writ petition by respondents No. 1 to 5. He reported for duties on 28.2.2012, as is apparent from Annexure R-4 to the reply. Meaning thereby that since Feb., 2012, it is respondent No.6 who is working as Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Sarad Dogri.

(3.) The writ-petitioner aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.6 had preferred CWP No. 1944 of 2012, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation before the 3rd respondent and a direction to the said respondent to decide the same after affording the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner vide judgment dated 2nd April, 2012, Annexure P-13 to the writ petition. The representation made by the petitioner was considered by the competent authority and decided vide order dated 12.09.2012, Annexure P-15 with the observations that respondent No.6 has been selected by the Selection Committee and also appointed as Part-time Water Carrier, hence it was not deemed proper to interfere with the selection and appointment. This has led in filing another writ petition (CWP No. 206 of 2013) decided vide judgment, under challenge in this appeal.