IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 4108 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 _________________________________________________________ Satish Kumar. .....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: None, despite issuance of actual date notice. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. None for respondent No. 3, despite issuance of actual date notice. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) “7(i) That the respondents No. 1 & 2 may be directed to appoint the applicant as Water-carrier for Govt. Primary School, Paplog and the impugned order qua the respondent No. 3 be quashed and set aside.” 2. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, the following stand has been taken in para 6(iii) to (vii): 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. “6(iii) to 6(vii) That in reply to these paras it is submitted ...2... that applicant and Salita Devi respondent No. 3 and Ms. Asha Kumari applied for the post of part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Karari-Pplog and the applications were scrutinised by the selection committee duly constituted for the purpose, after scrutiny the selection committee awarded the following marks to the applicant and to respondent Ms. Salita which is detailed below: Sr. No. Name. Distance. IRDP Marks Date of birth. 1. Sh. Satish Kumar 10. 10. 19.2.78. 2. Smt. Salita 10. 10. 7.9.75. The performa of marks list is attached and marked as R-I. Since both secured equal marks, the senior post in age i.e. respondent No. 3 Smt. Salita Devi W/o Sh. Sita Ram was selected by the selection committee. Accordingly on the basis of the recommendation of selection committee the respondent No. 3 has rightly been appointed as water carrier. It is further stated that the certificate issued by the headmaster is not valid as the headmaster is not competent authority to issue such certificate. Moreover, person working as water carrier after 31.3.96 were to be screened by the selection committee and they cannot claim as right to be appointed as water carrier. So, in view of these submission the contentions of the applicant as alleged in these paras are not admitted to be correct. Because, the selection of the respondent-3 has not been made in violation of the instructions and guidelines of Himachal Pradesh Govt. It is further stated that as per the information received for respondent No. 34 was ...3... not a regular peon at the time of selection/interview hence, the contention of the applicant in this regard is denied.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to him to approach the second respondent alongwith copy of this judgment within a month, in which case the said respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within another period of three months. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 10th November, 2010 (virender)