IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.12208 of 2008. Date of decision: 29.3.2011. Shri Bindu …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for Respondents-State Mr.Yash Chauhan, counsel for R-5. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the appointment of respondent No.5 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Shilli. 2. The petitioner alleges that on 4.7.2005 the Gram Panchayat Shilli took a decision to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Shilli. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 According to the respondents, in the meantime the State Government gave approval on 2.6.2005 to appoint respondent No.5 in Government Primary School, Shilli under Rule 12 of the Scheme who joined as such on 4.7.2005. The petitioner states that though his case was recommended by the Gram Panchayat the same was never considered properly by the State Government. It is further averred that the name of the petitioner was also recommended for appointment as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Shillai where there was no vacant post. 3. I have perused the record and from perusing the record it is apparent that on 8.4.2005 the petitioner applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Shille. The petitioner is a disabled person and suffers from 15% disability. He also belongs to the Scheduled tribe category. Respondent No.5 Smt.Dippo Devi who is also disabled appears to have also applied for the 3 said post. The name of Smt.Dippo Devi was recommended for appointment and she was in fact appointed as such. It is apparent that name of the petitioner was also sent and recommended. Since the approval was received for the name of Smt.Dippo Devi she was appointed as part time water carrier. 4. This Court in a number of cases has held that when two persons apply for appointment under Rule 12 of the Part Time Water Carrier Scheme then the rival merits of both the persons have to be considered. No doubt Rule 12 of the Scheme empowers the State Government to make appointments without conducting interviews etc. but when two persons apply for such post it is obvious that the concerned authority must consider the rival merit of the two or more persons who may have applied and select the best person on the basis of the criteria laid down. 5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is partly allowed. It is directed that the respondent State shall again reconsider the 4 names of the petitioner and Smt.Dippo Devi and order fresh appointment on consideration of their cases strictly on the basis of merit. Till such time Smt.Dippo Devi shall continue to hold the post. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. March 29,2011. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge