IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.573 of 2019 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Bimla Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: “1. That the appointment of Respondent No. 5, to the post of Part Time Water Carrier 'in Government Primary School Saman Kothi, Block Bijri, Tehsil Barsar having been made in an arbitrary and illegal manner without following the selection procedure made for extraneous considerations may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. That the this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant for appointment to the post of part time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Saman Kothi and justice be done.” 2 3. The case, as set out by the petitioner, is that she was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Saman Kothi in Development Block, Bijri, Teshil Barsar, District Hamirpur on 19.04.1999. She worked in the same capacity on honorary basis till 2006, when respondent No.6 was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in the said school. It has been submitted that the concerned Gram Panchayat vide resolution dated 08.02.2000 had recommended the appointment of petitioner on regular basis as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Saman Kothi. The District Primary Education Officer had called for the submission of documents from the petitioner, which she had submitted, but later her case was returned with the observation that the post of Part Time Water Carrier had not been sanctioned for the Government Primary School, Saman Kothi. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier without adopting any procedure. Neither advertisement was issued nor applications were invited from all eligible persons. In this backdrop, the petitioner has prayed for reliefs as noticed hereinabove. 5. The official respondents have filed their reply. It has been submitted that respondent No.6 was appointed as Part Time 3 Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Saman Kothi in terms of Clause 12 of the Policy for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers after approval of the Government as conveyed by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Hamirpur vide letter dated 08.06.2006. It is contended that as per Clause 12 of the Policy, the Government had power to appoint any candidate as Part Time Water Carrier without following the selection process. The allegation that respondent No.6 did not belong to the same Panchayat also has been denied. 6. Respondent No.6 has also filed his separate reply. The said respondent has justified his appointment as Part Time Water Carrier on the ground that he belonged to the nearby area and his house was within a distance of less than 3 Kms from the school. According to respondent No.6, there was no violation of law in his appointment. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. The appointment of respondent No.6 as Part Time Water Carrier had taken place in the year 2006. The respondents have sought to justify such appointment in terms of Clause 12 of the Scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers in the schools of Eduction Department, which reads as under: 4 “12. COMPASSIONATE GROUND APPOINTMENT:- 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 are widows, women deserted by their husbands, or otherwise destitute handicapped persons and if the candidates falls below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time.” 9. The petitioner had filed the instant petition in the year 2006, when she was 42 years old as evident from the age of the petitioner, submitted in her affidavit dated 9th July, 2006. Despite the prayer for interim orders, the appointment of private respondent No.6 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Suman Kothi, was not stayed and as a result he continued to work on the said post. Now the petitioner has admittedly crossed the age of 60 years. In this view of the matter, it will be a futile exercise to examine the allegations on merits. Since, the petitioner has not worked at any time on the post of Part Time Water Carrier after 2006, no relief can be granted to her now when she has already crossed the age of 60 years. 10. Even otherwise, the petitioner had worked as Part Time Water Carrier on honorary basis. It is not her case that she was appointed in terms of the Policy for appointment of Part Time 5 Water Carriers in the schools of Education Department of the State. Merely she had worked for some time on honorary basis, she would not be entitled to claim as a matter of right appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier. 11 As noticed above, it has become too late to examine the allegations as to lack of eligibility of respondent No.6. Clause 12 of the Policy for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers vested the State Government to appoint certain persons as Part Time Water Carriers without any selection process. It will not be possible to decide on the question whether respondent No.6 was eligible in terms of Clause 12 at the relevant time. 12. In result, I do not find any reason to interfere by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly keeping in view the inordinate delay that has already taken place in the matter. 13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge August 25, 2025 (vt)