IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8507 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Smt. Sahni Devi. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents-State: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief vide para 7(i): “7(i) That the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 as water carrier in G.P.G. Badhuhi, education Block Panchrukhi, vide annexure-A-II may please be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to consider the applicant for being appointed as water carrier in place of respondent No. 4 in the aforesaid school where she has been carrying on her duties as water carrier since 4-10-1997 regularly without any break, and to appoint her there forthwith.” 2. In reply, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken in preliminary submission and vide para 6: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... “That the applicant in this O.A. has challenged the selection of respondent No. 4 as Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Budhuhi, Block Panchrukhi, Distt. Kangra. The instant applicant is totally wrong and misconceived. The selection of the respondent No. 4 has been made on the recommendation of the duly constituted committee for the purpose under the chairmanship of the S.D.O.(C) of the area concerned as provided under the instruction/guidelines issued by the State Govt. regarding the appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in the Education Department. As such the assertion of the applicant is based on wrong facts and information as is evident from the reply as detailed herein below and as such is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.” “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 members Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat, Block Primary Education Officer and Centre Head Teacher 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 as per the notification issued by the Govt. in 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/OB C Whether unemployed family Viva Total Marks Yes --- Yes Yes --- --- 10 --- 3 5 2 20 Respondent No. 4 Distance from home to school Whether land was donated SC/ST/OB C Whether unemployed family Viva Total Marks Yes --- Yes Yes --- --- 10 --- --- 5 6 21 Since the respondent No. 4 has secured 21 marks and the applicant 20 marks, therefore, the respondent No. 4 has been offered appointment on the recommendation of the selection committee in accordance with the instruction.” ...3... 3. In reply, on behalf of respondents No. 5, the following stand has been taken vide para 3: “3. It is submitted that the selection has been made by the duly constituted Selection Committee on the basis of overall merit achieved by the concerned person, whereas the applicant has leveled allegations of malafide, arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution against the Selection Committee. Therefore, all the members of the Selection Committee are necessary parties to be brought in the array of proceedings and as such the O.A. is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties which deserved to be dismissed in limini on this score alone. However, assertions made in this para are denied emphatically and averments in para 3 of ors. are reiterated.” 4. The reply on behalf of respondent No. 5 is akin to that of respondents No. 1 to 3. 5. In view of the above replies, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before the first respondent/competent authority within a period of one month from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the first respondent/competent authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the private respondents, if so desired. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th December, 2010 (virender)