Dismissed

Vandna Devi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Sept 2026CWP/5917/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 as a Part-Time Water Carrier. The High Court held that Clause 12 of the policy had been struck down after respondent No. 4’s appointment and could not be applied retrospectively in a manner that would disrupt her nearly 13 years of service. It also held that the employer could select one candidate from competing compassionate-ground applicants without first rejecting the others, and upheld the appointment because respondent No. 4 was found to be equally or more in need of the post. The writ petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vandna Devi Vs State of Hp — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.5917 of 2014

¶3

Decided on: 19.09.2026

¶4

_________________________________________________________________ Vandana Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of HP and Ors …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Lovneeesh Kanwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. R. L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

Petitioner has assailed the selection and

¶10

appointment of respondent No. 4 as Part-Time Water Carrier.

¶11

2. Heard and considered the case file.

¶12

3. Post of Part-Time Water Carrier was lying vacant

¶13

at Government Primary School Ghagas, District Bilaspur.

¶14

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶15

¶16

Respondent-State had framed Part-Time Water Carrier Scheme, 2011 for making appointment of Part-Time Water Carriers, vide notification dated 25.07.2011.

¶17

3(i) As per Clause 12 of the Scheme, the respondentState had the power to appoint any candidate as Part-Time Water Carrier on compassionate grounds, without following selection process, if the candidate was below the poverty line or had low income certificate issued by the competent authority and if the candidate was widow or member of family living in extreme indigent conditions etc. The Clause read as under :-

¶18

“12 COMPASSIONATE GROUND APPOINTMENTS

¶19

The Government will have the power to appoint any candidate as Part Time Water Carrier on compassionate ground without following the selection process if the candidates is below the Poverty Line or has a Low Income Certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehildar, SDO(C) or Executive Magistrate of the concerned area and if the candidates is a :-

¶20

(i) Widow, or (ii) Member of family living in extreme indigent conditions.

¶21

Family includes father, mother and their children. (This certificate will be issued not below the rank of SDO (C); or

¶22

(iii) Women deserted by the husband or otherwise destitute, or

¶23

(iv) Handicapped persons; or (v) An orphan.”

¶24

¶25

3(ii) Petitioner sought appointment as Part-Time Water

¶26

Carrier against a post that was lying vacant at Government

¶27

Primary School Ghagas under the aforesaid Rule 12 in the year 2012. Upon directions of respondent No.3 to submit the desired documents, petitioner alongwith requisite documents also furnished a certificate of her suffering from 30% permanent moderate blindness of one eye. While considering her case, a question cropped up before the respondents that under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, “Person with disability” means a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability certified by the competent medical authority. It appears that matter thereafter traversed up and down between different authorities while processing the case of petitioner. A complaint was also filed against the petitioner in the office of Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Bilaspur, by one Sukh Devi, which was inquired into. During the process of inquiry, petitioner furnished a fresh certificate of her suffering from same disability as noticed above, but now to the extent of 40%. Both certificates issued in favour of the petitioner stating her disability to the extent of 30%

¶28

¶29

and 40% were found to be genuine.

¶30

3(iii) In the meantime, the State Government approved appointment of respondent No. 4 as Part-Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Ghagas. The approval was conveyed to respondent No . 4 on 04.07.2013. Respondent No. 4 submitted all requisite documents in accordance with Rule 12 of the Part-Time Water Carrier Scheme.

¶31

3(iv) In view of approval of two different candidates for the post of Part-Time Water Carrier for the same school, respondent No. 6 sought clarification for proceeding further in the matter. Thereafter, both the cases were reviewed by the State, and name of respondent No. 4 was approved for appointment as Part-Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Ghagas. She was appointed as such and joined her duties on 06.09.2013. The respondent No. 4 is continuing to serve as Part-Time Water Carrier for last about 13 years. Petitioner feels aggrieved by such appointment of respondent No. 4.

¶32

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 12 of the Part-Time Water Carrier Policy was struck down in Mangla Devi versus State of HP

¶33

¶34

and others² , therefore, it was contended that on this ground itself, appointment of respondent No. 4 is liable to be quashed and set aside. On merits, it was submitted that petitioner's case was already pending consideration with the respondents and in that view of the matter, it was not open for the official respondents to offer appointment on the post of Part-Time Water Carrier (PTWC) to respondent No 4 without rejecting the case of petitioner.

¶35

5. It is a matter of record that Clause 12 of the PartTime Water Carrier Policy was struck down in Mangla Devi² . However, Mangla Devi² was decided on 15.05.2015. In the instant case, selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 under Clause 12 of the policy was made prior to Mangla Devi² . Respondent No. 4 in fact, was appointed as PTWC on 16.09.2013, in terms of the then existing Clause 12. By now, she has completed almost 13 years on the said post. Therefore, the adverse impact of Mangla Devi² cannot be applied to respondent No 4 at this stage, in the given facts and circumstances as such recourse would be extremely

¶36

harsh upon her, who has otherwise been given such appointment on compassionate grounds considering her

¶37

2 Latest HLJ 2015 HP 902.

¶38

¶39

living in penury. Reference in this regard can be made to

¶40

following para of P.V. George v. State of Kerala³ :-

¶41

“14. For the views we propose to take, it is not necessary for us to consider all the decisions relied upon by Mr. Rajan. The legal position as regards the applicability of doctrine of prospective overruling is no longer res integra. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 142 of the Constitution of India may declare a law to have a prospective effect. The Division Bench of the High Court may be correct in opining that having regard to the decision of this Court in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab [AIR 1967 SC 1643] the power of overruling is vested only in this Court and that too in constitutional matters, but the High Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even without applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, indisputably may grant a limited relief in exercise of their equity jurisdiction.”

¶42

Further, it may be noticed that petitioner and respondent No.4 had both applied for the post of Part-Time

¶43

Water Carrier under Clause 12 of the Policy. It was the discretion of the employer to be exercised in accordance with law, for considering the competing claims of the candidates who had applied under Clause 12. For selecting a candidate for offering appointment under Clause 12, it was not necessary to reject the candidature of others. It is for the respondents to confer appointment to the one they selected out of the applicants.

¶44

3 (2007) 3 SCC 557

¶45

¶46

Further, from the reply filed by the respondents, including the respondent State, it does not come out that respondent No. 4 was less needy than the petitioner for the post in question. As per the pleadings, respondent No. 4 was handicapped, suffering from 40% disability, belonged to Below Poverty Line family with income less than Rs.12,000/per year from all sources and she was also stated to be belonging to a Backward Class Category.

¶47

It was for the employer to have judged the candidates on the basis of their competing merits in accordance with law. In the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that discretion so exercised by the official respondents was not in conformity with law. Respondent No.4 has been continuing on the post of Part Time Water Carrier for the last about 13 years. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

¶49

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶50

September 19,2026 R.Atal

Vandna Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vandna Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases