IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4600 of 2008. Date of decision: 21.4.2011 Parkash Chand …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.N.D.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: S/Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G for respondents No.1 to 4. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Deputy Commission, Kullu whereby he set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Himari, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu. It is not disputed before me that the Selection Committee selected the present petitioner to the said post. Appeal was filed before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kullu by two persons 2 namely Anar Kali and Phula Devi. The Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the IRDP certificate produced by the petitioner was not issued by the competent authority and, therefore, the marks given to him as IRDP candidate were reduced. There were two appellants before the learned Deputy Commissioner. As far as Smt.Anar Kali was concerned, the learned Deputy Commissioner found that there was over-writing against her age and, therefore, rejected her candidature and directed that respondent No.5 Phula Devi be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier who was at Sr.No.3 of the selection list. The manner in which the learned Deputy Commissioner decided the case leaves much to be desired. Before holding the IRDP certificate to be not issued by the competent authority, he should have clearly stated who is the competent authority to issue such certificate and who is the authority who had actually issued the certificate. The petitioner alongwith his petition has attached a certificate issued by the Block 3 Development Officer, Anni wherein it is certified that the petitioner belongs to the IRDP category. This certificate was issued on 16.5.1997 and was valid till 15.11.1997. It is obvious that this certificate was issued at the relevant time and this must have been the certificate produced before the learned Deputy Commissioner. Nothing has been brought to my notice to show that the Block Development Officer is not entitled to issue such a certificate. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent No.5 as Part Time Water Carrier is set aside and the respondents are directed to again offer appointment to the petitioner as part Time Water Carrier. The order of this Court be complied with latest by 31.5.2011. April 21, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) Judge 4