IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8622 of 2008 Date of decision: 6.1.2011 Jai Singh ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Bhatia , Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Heemat Negi, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral) The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 as part time water carrier on the ground that petitioner has 15% disability having very less land and is more deserving for appointment as part time water carrier. It has been submitted that respondent No.4 has been wrongly selected. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… 2. The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the reply. The perusal of reply indicates that the petitioner has secured 18 marks whereas respondent No.4 has secured 21 marks and since respondent No.4 has secured 21 marks he was appointed as part time water carrier. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply nor he has placed on record the Scheme/Policy for the appointment of part time water carrier. There is no reason to disbelieve the stand of respondents No.1,2 that respondent No.4 was appointed as part time water carrier since he has secured 21 marks whereas petitioner has secured 18 marks. The petitioner has failed to make out a case that he is more meritorious and has preferential right of appointment as part time water carrier. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. January 6, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.