IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8712/2008 Decided on:9.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Roop Chand Thakur. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5. None for respondents No. 4 and 6. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Shulang, Tehsil and District Kullu. Petitioner and respondent No.6 had participated in the selection process. Petitioner has secured 19.5 marks and respondent No.6 has secured 22.5 marks. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he has not been allotted any marks for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 donating the land by his father for construction of the school building. Petitioner has not placed on record any revenue record to substantiate that the land, in question, was donated for the purpose of construction of a school building. There is a procedure prescribed for donation of land. A person has to make a gift deed to the State Government and thereafter the revenue entries are made in favour of the State. The certificate Annexure A-4 has been issued by the Pradhan on 28.5.2002. It is not supported by any revenue record. Prima facie it is in a grey area whether the marks can be allotted for the purpose of donation of land by a candidate or his ancestors. Giving preference to the candidates whose ancestors have donated the land will be discriminatory and unjust since the poor persons will not be in a position to compete with rich persons. Public employment is to be offered strictly as per the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There has to be equality while considering the candidature of all the eligible candidates. 2. Moreover, the suitability of the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 has been gone into by a duly constituted Selection Committee and this Court will not sit in appeal over the same. 3 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 9.12.2010 *awasthi*