IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4526 of 2009. Date of Decision: 17.3.2011. Smt. Neelam …Petitioner. Versus. State of HP & Ors. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 & 2: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG. For the Respondent No.3: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the appointment of respondent No.3-Smt. Veena Devi to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bairi, District Hamirpur. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner herein had applied for appointment to the said post under Rule 12 of the rules wherein the Government is empowered to appoint any candidate as Part Time Water Carrier on compassionate grounds without following the selection process, if the candidate fulfills the requisite qualifications laid down in the notification dated 25th September, 2007. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 10.9.2009 that she may submit her application form within one week alongwith requisite documents. It is not disputed that the petitioner did submit these documents and went to the office of Deputy Director on 15th September, 2009. However on 15th September. 2009 she was informed that respondent No.3-Smt. Veena Devi had already been selected. It is apparent that respondent No.3 had also applied for the said post. Therefore, the person who was going to issue the order should have compared the merits of both the candidates who had applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier under Rule 12. This Court in a number of cases has held that if there are more than one candidates, their respective merits will have to be considered. Therefore, respondent No.3 should not have been appointed for the aforesaid post without taking into consideration the case of the petitioner. 3. Normally this would have resulted in by an order quashing the appointment of respondent No.3, but since the respondent No.3 is in employment and is working as Part Time Water Carrier she will be permitted to continue to serve as such. In the mean time, the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister shall ensure that the matter is reconsidered and the comparative merit of both the candidates are taken into consideration and thereafter the candidate found most suitable is appointed. Needful be done on or before 30th June, 2011. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 17th March, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (Krn Guleria) Judge.