Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 2096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ.
Gaurav Thakur - Appellant
Versus
Prem Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 98 of 2015
Decided On : 22-11-2018
Shrawan Dogra, Adv., Umesh Kanwar, Adv., Harsh Kalta, Adv., Bhuvnesh Sharma, Adv., Vikas Rathore, Adv., Narinder Guleria, Adv., J.S. Guleria, Adv., Kunal Thakur, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the engagement of a Mid Day Meal Worker under a scheme does not constitute service in the Government, as defined under Rule 2 (h) of CCS (CCA) Rules.
Headnote:
Mid Day Meal Worker - Appointment Dispute - Rule 2 (h) of CCS (CCA) Rules - The court discussed the meaning of 'Government Servant' and concluded that a Mid Day Meal Worker does not hold a civil post under the Union or State Government and therefore cannot be considered a Government servant. The court also emphasized that the engagement of a Mid Day Meal Worker is under a scheme and does not entitle them to seek regularization or any other benefits admissible to a Government servant. The court interpreted the guidelines for appointment as a Part-time Water Carrier and held that the candidate belonging to a family with no member in Government service is entitled to marks, supporting the appointment of the respondent as Part-time Water Carrier.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a Part-time Water Carrier in a Government Primary School, where the writ-petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.6. The court considered the eligibility criteria and the interpretation of guidelines for the appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's appointment as a Part-time Water Carrier was valid and in accordance with the guidelines, dismissing the writ petition and allowing the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the engagement of the respondent as a Mid Day Meal Worker under the scheme constituted service in the Government, and the interpretation of the guidelines for appointment as a Part-time Water Carrier.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the meaning of 'Government Servant' under Rule 2 (h) of CCS (CCA) Rules and the guidelines for appointment as a Part-time Water Carrier, emphasizing that the engagement of a Mid Day Meal Worker does not constitute service in the Government.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appointment of the respondent as Part-time Water Carrier.
JUDGMENT
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - 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 February, 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.
4. On hearing Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Umesh Kanwar and Mr. Harsh Kalta, Advocates on behalf of appellant-respondent No.6 and Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.1-writ petitioner as well as Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondent-State and also going through the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge while interpreting the guidelines applicable for appointment as Part-time Water Carrier and also taking note of the factum of mother of respondent No.6, at the relevant time, was working as Mid Day Meal Worker, has concluded that in terms of Clause 7(4) of the guideline applicable for appointment as Parttime Water Carrier, it is the candidates belonging to a family of which no one is in government service alone entitled to get five marks. Learned Single Judge has construed the mother of respondent No.6 working as Mid Day Meal Worker being in Government service has held the five marks awarded to him in the capacity of a member of the family of which no member is in Government service, illegal and contrary to the scheme. We, however, are not in agreement with such interpretation given by learned Single Judge for the reason that the employment under "Mid Day Meal Worker Scheme" cannot be treated as service in Government by any stretch of imagination.
5. In vi
