IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8720 of 2008 Decided on: July 20, 2011 Mohan Lal Vs. State of H.P. and ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : For the respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. for the respondents-State. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i) That the selection of respondent No.6 as Part-Time Water Carrier in GPS Shangchar, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents be directed to consider the name of the applicant for the post of Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Sangchar and thereby to appoint the applicant to the said post or in the alternative respondents No. 1 to 4 may be directed to hold fresh interviews and the consider the applicant in accordance with the scheme.” 2. In the reply at paragraph 6 (e) to (h), it is stated as follows:- “ (e) This para is admitted only to the extent that notification has been issued by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, in which guidelines/eligibility criteria for selecting the candidates for the post of part time water carrier are laid down. The suitability of the candidate is judged by the selection committee appointed by the Govt. purely on merit. Marks in the interview were given strictly on the basis of the guidelines 2 as provided in the notification. Since all the candidates who appeared for the interview were residents of Shangchar Village, which is at a distance of about 1 kilometre from the School, as such the maximum marks must have been awarded to all of them. Similarly other marks meant for particular category were awarded according to the guidelines. (f) This para is vehemently denied. It is nowhere provided in the notification that preference is to be given to the candidates belonging to S.C./S.T./O.B.C. category. They are however, awarded the marks provided in the notification. The applicant was awarded the marks meant for S.C. category. Respondent No.5, faired well in the interview and was thus, rightly selected by the selection committee. The replying respondent being Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat is aware about the Financial condition of respondent No.5, who is extremely poor, handicapped and the family is I.R.D.P. one. (g) This para is emphatically denied. The applicant was awarded the marks meant for S.C. category but still he could not compete with the respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 secured highest marks in the interview and thus was rightly selected as per time water carrier by the selection committee. (h) This para is vehemently denied. Respondent No.5 is not related to the replying respondent at all. The selection committee consisted of S.D.O. (Civil), B.P.O. C.H.T. and Pradhan. The selection of respondent No.5, as part time water carrier was made by the Selection Committee purely on the basis of the merit.” 3. There is no rejoinder, as well. In case, the petitioner has still any grievance left or any dispute with regard to the factual position, as stated in the reply, it will be open to him to approach the third respondent, 3 in which case the third respondent will take appropriate action in accordance with law within another four months. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice July 20, 2011 ( Justice V.K. Sharma ) (pankaj) Judge