IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8975/2008 Reserved on : 9.12.2010 Decided on:18.12. 2010 _____________________________________________ Aruna Kumari. …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 : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 4. None for respondent No.5 Ms. Bhawna Dutta, Advocate for respondent No.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, Jathia Devi. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the selection of respondent No.6 is in contravention to the scheme framed by the respondent-State for filling up the posts of Part Time Water Carrier. The suitability of the petitioner and respondent No.6 has been gone into by the duly constituted Selection Committee. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Respondent No.6 has secured 19 marks. According to the averments made in the reply, petitioner has not produced documents/certificates before the Selection Committee. 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that the respondent No.6 does not belong to the village where the school in question is situated. She has relied upon Annexure A-3. However, Annexure A-3 has been issued on 6.9.2002 and the interviews had already taken place on 16.7.2002. Respondent-State has also placed on record Annexure R-5 dated 6.2.2003 issued by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Barchhwar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi stating therein that the petitioner belongs to village Dabrog, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. It was necessary for the petitioner to produce the necessary documents at the time when the interviews were held on 16.7.2002. Since the suitability of the candidates has been gone into by the duly constituted Selection Committee, this Court will not sit in appeal over the same. 3. Accordingly, In view of the above observations and discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 18.12. 2010 *awasthi*