IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8664/2008 Decided on:16.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Chinti Devi. …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 : Ms. Anjali Soni, Advocate vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General 1 to 3. Respondent No.4 already ex parte. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondent No.5. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Kasaru. Petitioner and respondent No.5 appeared before a duly constituted Selection Committee on 18.7.2002. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that since residence of respondent No.5 was at a distance of 40 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 kilometers from the school in question, marks could not be allotted to her on this count. Precise case of the respondent- State is that respondent No.5 is a destitute being deserted by her husband and per force, she is residing in her parental house at village Kasaru. Respondent-State has placed on record copy of the selection list in a tabulated form. Petitioner has secured 16 marks and respondent No.5 has secured 24 marks. It is evident from the reply filed by respondent No.5 that she is a destitute lady. She has been deserted by her husband. In fact, her husband is harassing her and she has also filed a complaint against him before the competent authority. An inquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. Petitioner is already working as Sahayak (Helper) in Anganwari Kendra, Kathlog since 24.2.1991, as per Annexure R-V/1. The distance has also been certified by the Gram Panchayat as per Annexure R-V/3. The distance certified by the Pradhan is about 400 meters from the house of respondent No.5. 2. Mr. B.C. Negi submits that respondent No.5 has already joined her duties pursuant to letter dated 12.8.2002. Petitioner has also not assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 specifically. It was necessary for her to 3 place on record the appointment letter of respondent No.5 pursuant to which she has joined her duties. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 16.12.2010 *awasthi*