IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 4578 of 2008. Decided on: 1st September, 2010. Shiv Dassi. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 3. : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Nagan, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that she has not been allocated the marks under the category of I.R.D.P./handicapped as per the norms laid down in notification dated 30th December, 1996 (Annexure A-8). 3. The case of the respondent-State precisely is that the suitability of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 was adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee. Petitioner has secured 15.5 marks and the respondent No. 3 has secured 17.5 marks as per the result-sheet (Annexure R-I). 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 5. The last date of receipt of applications, as per Annexure A-8, dated 30th December, 1996, was 31st December, 1996. Petitioner has placed on record certificate (Annexure A-3), dated 12th July, 1997, issued by the Gram Panchayat-Cum- Development Officer, Gram Panchayat, Nagan certifying that she belongs to I.R.D.P. category. Petitioner has not placed on record the copy of I.R.D.P. certificate. As per the instructions issued by the State Government, the I.R.D.P. certificate is to be issued by the Block Development Officer. However, Annexure A-3 has been issued by the Gram Panchayat-Cum-Development Officer. In case the petitioner was in possession of I.R.D.P. certificate, she ought to have filed the same alongwith her application on or before 31.12.1996. It is settled law by now that the testimonials, certificates etc. are supposed to be annexed with the application on or before the date prescribed under the rules or by way of advertisement. However, in the present case, the last date for submitting the applications was 31.12.1996. Petitioner has also not pleaded that she has mentioned about her category in the application. Moreover, once the suitability of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 has been adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee, the Court cannot sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 01, 2010. (bhupender)