IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 12669 of 2008. Decided on: 30.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Santosh Kumari. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jhandi, Pargana Karoli, Sub Tehsil Junga, District Shimla. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 is not eligible as per the Scheme framed by the respondent-State for filling up the post of Part Time Water Carrier. 2. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner suffers from 40% disability and she also belongs to I.R.D.P. category. According to him, respondent No.4 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - runs a Karyana shop. Respondents have filed replies. Respondent No.4 is a handicapped person and also belongs to below poverty line. The appointment of respondent No.4 has been made under Rule 12 of the Scheme. The respondent No.4 has specifically denied that he was running any Karyana shop. The petitioner had only submitted application to the Speaker of Vidhan Sabha. The application was required to be routed through proper channel. It is true that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 are physically challenged persons to the extent of 40%. Respondent No.4 belongs to below poverty line. Appointment letter was issued on 21.11.2005 and he has joined his duties on 22.11.2005. Since the petitioner has not applied in the prescribed manner and the appointment of respondent No.4 was also made on 21.11.2005, this Court will not interfere with the matter at this belated stage. 3. 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. December 30, 2010. (sck).