HARISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioner in November, 2011 applied under Clause 12 of the Part -Time Water Carrier Scheme (for short 'Scheme') seeking appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in GPS, Hatnali in Gram Panchayat, Palog (Manjhu), Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. After receipt of the letter from the office of respondent No.2, the respondent No.3 issued an interview letter to the petitioner calling upon him to remain present in his office alongwith all testimonials on 25.5.2011. The petitioner accordingly presented himself and furnished the requisite certificates and was directed to produce the indigent certificate which was subsequently produced by him on 27.5.2011. The case of the petitioner was recommended by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 31.5.2011.

(3.) However, before the petitioner could actually be appointed, respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 20.12.2011 informed the respondent No.3 that the case of respondent No.5 had been approved under Clause 12 of the Scheme for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier. Respondent No.2 thereafter vide his letter dated 17.2.2012 directed the respondent No.3 to offer appointment to respondent No.5. The respondent No.3 on 12.3.2012 issued appointment letter in favour of respondent No.5 which has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the procedure adopted by respondents No. 1 to 3 in appointing respondent No.5 was totally unknown to law and was the result of malafide action as also colourable exercise of power. The grounds have been elaborated in paras 10(a) to 10(e) of the petition.