Yomawati Vs State of Hp

¶1

2026:HHC:17173

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWPOA No.4552 of 2019 Decided on : 14th May, 2026

¶4

_______________________________________________________________ Yomawati ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Principal Secretary (Elementary Education) and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiy Whether approvedfor re	a Lal Bhardwaj, Judge porting?¹
For the petitioner:	Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma,
	Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.
	Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
	Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶8

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶9

The petitioner by way of present petition has

¶10

sought directions to offer her appointment after quashing

¶11

the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Part Time

¶12

Water Carrier in Government Middle School, Guran Under

¶13

Complex GSSS Murah, District Mandi, H.P.

¶14

The petitioner has averred in the petition that as

¶15

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

¶16

2

¶17

per the notification dated 25.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), the

¶18

preference was to be given to the widow and since the petitioner is a widow, the respondents-State has committed illegality while offering appointment to respondent No.5.

¶19

Respondent No.3 has filed reply to the petition

¶20

and averred that as per Notification dated 25.07.2011, no separate marks are provided to be given to the widow and handicapped candidates. At the time of interview, the marks

¶21

to all candidates were awarded strictly as per para 7 of the notification and the selection has been made in a fair manner

¶22

and as per the documents submitted by the candidate. The petitioner had no preferential right to selection and appointment and the petitioner is misinterpreting the notification.

¶23

Respondent No.5 has filed separate reply to the petition and averred that he has been selected on the basis of the merit and he is working as such. Further, he belongs to Below Poverty Line category and the certificate in that regard was furnished and the same has also been placed on record.

¶24

3

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶26

and also perused the record carefully.

¶27

As per the notification dated 25.07.2011, no doubt, Clause 12 says that “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 candidate is below the Poverty Line or has a low income certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar,

¶28

SDO(C) or Executive Magistrate of the concerned area and if

¶29

the candidate is a:-

¶30

i) Widow, or ii) Member of family living in extreme indigent conditions. Family includes father, mother and their children. (This certificate will be issued not below the rank of SDO(C); or

¶31

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

¶32

iv) Handicapped persons; or

¶33

v) An orphan.”

¶34

However, in the present case, once the

¶35

respondents-State had invited the applications for making selection and not followed the process to appoint persons on

¶36

compassionate ground, the petitioner cannot harp on the

¶37

notification dated 25.07.2011. As per Clause 7 of this

¶38

4

¶39

notification, a criteria has been laid down to judge the suitability of the candidates purely on merit. Once, the respondents-State had adopted the said procedure and awarded the marks to the candidates to appear in the interview, nothing wrong can be found with the said procedure, especially, when the petitioner had participated in the selection process and did not challenge the same before appearing in the interview.

¶40

A perusal of copy of selection chart (Annexure P- 2-A) placed on record by the petitioner (Page 14), reveals that

¶41

the petitioner has scored 11 marks, whereas respondent No.5 has scored 13 marks. It is also relevant to mention here that the selected candidate also belongs to BPL category, as per the certificate (Annexure R-5/A).

¶42

The petitioner has not made any allegation against the selection committee while awarding marks in the interview and further once as per the notification dated 25.07.2011, the marks have been allocated and the candidates, who had appeared in the interview had been

¶43

awarded the same strictly as per the criteria, no illegality can

¶44

5

¶45

be found in the selection of respondent No.5 to the post of

¶46

Part Time Water Carrier.

¶47

Learned counsel representing respondent No.5

¶48

has submitted that due to pendency of the present lis, the services of respondent No.5 could not be regularized.

¶49

No other point is raised.

¶50

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the

¶51

petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be

¶52

no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶53

The respondents-State is at liberty to take appropriate decision with respect to regularization of respondent No.5, since, as per the learned counsel, the matter was pending adjudication before this Court and no decision regarding his regularization was taken.

¶54

14th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge

Yomawati v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yomawati v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkrishan and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Narinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Ram Singh Mehta Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Jawahar Lal Sharma Vs State of Hp

Kartar Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Baba Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gautam Bhardwaj and Others