IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8737/2008 Reserved on: 16.12.2010 Decided on:31.12. 2010 _____________________________________________ Beli Ram. …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. Keshav Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondent No.3 already ex parte. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Muddal, Block Ani, District Kullu. The suitability of the petitioner and respondent No.4 has been gone into by a duly constituted Selection Committee. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Petitioner has secured 21 marks and respondent No.4 has secured 22 marks pursuant to interview held on 18.7.2002. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that respondent No.4 has been granted disproportionately higher marks in viva voce. It is also the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was not entitled to 10 marks for distance from home to school. Petitioner and respondent No.4 have relied upon the certificates issued by the respective Pradhan of Gram Panchayats as far as the distance from home to school is concerned, i.e. Annexures A-5 and 4B. Petitioner has been given 3 marks in viva-voce and respondent No.4 has been given 7 marks in viva-voce. This Court cannot go into the question whether the marks allotted to the candidates were disproportionately higher or not. It was for the Selection Committee to award marks in the viva voce test on the basis of overall performance of the candidates. There is a difference of only 4 marks. The difference of 4 marks cannot be treated as disproportionately higher. The certificate with regard to distance from home to school, qua petitioner and respondent No.4, has been issued by the respective Pradhan of Gram Panchayats 3 2. 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 31.12. 2010 *awasthi*