IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.4410 of 2008. [OA No.1168 of 1997] Date of Decision: 28th February, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Shri Rajinder Singh ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate, vice Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. No.1 & 2. Respondent No.3 exparte. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The petitioner had filed Original Application in the erstwhile Tribunal to re- engage him to the post of Part-Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Sural, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba and sought the quashment of the order dated 20th March, 1997 (Annexure A-2) canceling his appointment and thereafter appointing respondent No.3 against the said post. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was selected and appointed as part-time water-carrier in the said Primary School vide order Annexure A-1, inter alia, subject to production of “Bonafide Himachali certificate” to which he failed to produce. The certificate already issued in his favour was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was son of Ishwar Chand, resident of Jammu & Kashmir. As such, respondent No.3 who was next in merit was appointed against the said post. 4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already appended requisite certificates with his application when he applied for the said post, but as per respondents no such certificate in original was found appended therewith. As per the communication received by the learned Additional Advocate General from the Block Primary Education Officer (B.P.E.O.), Pangi, the father of the petitioner was bonafide resident of village Gandhari in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and by mistake the then S.D.M. had issued the bonafide Himachali certificate in - 3 - favour of the petitioner, which was later cancelled. Thus, that might be the reason the petitioner could not produce any certificate as required, as such his appointment was canceled and the offer of appointment was rightly given to respondent No.3 who was next in merit. 5. Therefore, for the above reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby his appointment was treated as cancelled, as such, the petition is dismissed. February 28, 2011. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)