IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8769/2008 Reserved on: 23.2.2011 Decided on:3.3. 2011 _____________________________________________ Inder Pal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Dauladhar (Ward No.3 Dagrahan. Petitioner alongwith respondent No.5 submitted application for considering his candidature for the post of Part Time Water 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Carrier. Interviews were held on 22.7.2002. Petitioner secured 24 marks and respondent No.5 secured 27 marks. 2. Mr. Raman Sethi has strenuously argued that as per the notification dated 27.7.2001, respondent No.5 was only entitled to 6 marks. In other words, his submission is that residence of respondent No.5 from the school in question was situated at a distance of more than two kilometers. He also argued that the land donated by the father of respondent No.5 was in dispute and as such the petitioner could not be allocated 5 marks under this head. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. T.S. Chauhan have supported the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Dauladhar. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and record carefully. 5. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed detailed reply. Respondents No.4 and 5 were given opportunities to file reply on 5.12.2002, 9.5.2003. 15.11.2007, 13.12.2007 and 4.4.2008 and the right to file reply was closed by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 20.6.2008. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3. However, respondent-State has not 3 chosen to file sur-rejoinder to the same though opportunity was given. 6. Interviews were held on 22.7.2002. According to notification dated 27.7.2001, candidate whose residence is at a distance of 1.5 kilometers from the school is to be given 10 marks, upto 2 kilometers from the school 8 marks and upto 3 kilometers from the school 6 marks. Petitioner has placed on record certificate issued by the Additional Assistant Engineer, Swarghat whereby he has certified that the distance of the house of petitioner from the Government Primary School, Dauladhar is 1.08 kilometers. The distance of the house of respondent No.5 from the Government Primary School, Dauladhar has been certified to be 2.10 kilometers, as per Annexure A-10. However, the fact of the matter is that respondent No.5 has been given 10 marks under ‘distance head’. In view of the certificate issued by the Additional Assistant Engineer, Swarghat, respondent No.5 could only be given 6 marks instead of 10 marks. In case these 4 marks are deducted then in the overall tally, respondent No.5 will secure 23 marks and petitioner will secure 24 marks. However, as far as the plea of petitioner with respect to donation of land is concerned, suffice it to so that this Court will not go into this question once the land 4 stands donated by the father of respondent No.5 for the purpose of construction of school. Petitioner has not placed on record any tangible material to establish that land donated by the father of respondent No.5 is under dispute in any court of law. 7. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, it is held that the action of the Selection Committee awarding 10 marks to respondent No.5 was arbitrary and he was entitled to 6 marks only. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Dauladhar (Ward No.3 Dagrahan) is quashed and set aside. Respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Dauladhar (Ward No.3 Dagrahan) on the basis of interview held on 22.7.2002, within a period of one month, from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 3.3. 2011 *awasthi*