IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8911 of 2008 Decided on 08.12.2010 Maanju Ram ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayer vide para 7(i):- “ That the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of Water Carrier may kindly be quashed and set- aside and the respondent No.2 and 3 may very kindly be directed to order the appointment of the applicant to the post of Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Deem.” 2. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken vide para 6:- “That in reply to para No.6 and its sub-paras it is submitted that the selection committee headed by the S.D.O (Civil) as its chairman and three other members Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat, Block Primary Education Officer and Centre Head Teacher 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 2 of the centre concerned of the respective block scrutinized the application received in response to the vide publicity and awarded the marks on the basis of the documents submitted by the candidates and as per the notification issued by the Government kin this regard. On the basis of recommendation of the selection committee the candidate securing the higher marks has been appointed. In the instant case, the applicant and respondent No.4 has obtained the marks as given below : Applicant:- Distance from home to school Whether land was donated SC/ST/OBC Whether unemployed family Viva Total Marks Yes --- Yes Yes --- --- 10 -- 3 5 3.25 21.25 Respondent No.4 Distance from home to school Whether land was donated SC/ST/OBC Whether unemployed family Viva Total Marks Yes --- --- Yes --- --- 10 -- -- 5 6.75 21.75 Since the respondent No. 4 has secured 21.75 marks and the applicant 21.25 marks, therefore, the respondent No.4 has been offered appointment on the recommendation of the selection committee in accordance with the instruction.” 3.. Respondent No. 3 has filed separate reply which is akin to that of respondents No. 1 and 2. 4. Rejoinder refuting the above stand and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has also been filed. 5. In view of the pleadings on behalf of the parties and on an overall view of the matter particularly a slight difference between marks obtained by the petitioner and private 3 respondent No.4, as also the fact that the petitioner is physically challenged person with disability of 42% as per Annexure A-4, there will be a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier against an existing vacancy in Tehsil Rohru, subject to his making a representation along with copy of this judgment to the said respondent within one month from today and the said respondent shall consider and take final decision thereon in accordance with law and justice taking into consideration the recruitment Scheme issued vice notification dated 27.7.2001, for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers in the Schools of Education Department, within next three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so advised. 6. The petition, so also the pending CMP(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above terms. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 8th December, 2010. Lsp*