IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 8816 of 2008. Decided on December 8, 2011. Smt. Rattani Devi, wife of late Shri Kishan Chand, resident of Padiola, P.O. Kodra, Tehsil Bangana, Distt. Una, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus. 1. State of H.P. through Director Primary Education to the Government of H.P., Shimla. 2, Concerned Committee constituted for selection of Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Dharet, Gram Panchayat, Dhingulli through its Chairman-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bangana, Tehsil, Bangana, Distt. Una, H.P. 3, Smt. Bimla Devi wife of Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of Village Neri, P.O. Bubhan, Tehsil Bangana, Distt. Una, H.P. …Respondents. Application under Section 19 of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 1 & 2 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. For respondent No. 3 Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, who along with respondent No. 3, was a candidate for the post of Part Time Water Carrier, in Primary School, Dharet, Tehsil Bangana, Distt. Una, has filed the present petition, challenging the selection and appointment of respondent Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… CWP (T) 8816 of 2008. No. 3 against the said post, on the grounds that committee for selection had not been properly constituted, respondent No. 3 was overage and she had been wrongly awarded 10 marks for the distance, as according to the petitioner, her residence is at a distance of more than 1.5 km. from the school and hence no marks could have been awarded to her on this score. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed reply in which all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, have been denied. Respondent No. 3 has filed separate reply. She too controverts the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Petitioner has not explained as to what impropriety was committed in the constitution of the selection committee. Respondents 1 and 2 have, very categorically, stated in their reply that selection committee consisted of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Block Primary Education Officer and the Head Teacher of the school concerned. As per Scheme, Annexure A-5, relied upon by the petitioner herself, only above said four persons were required to form the selection committee. Hence, first contention is rejected. 5. Next contention is that respondent No. 3 was more than 45 years of age, which is the maximum age limit, prescribed for the post. Respondents have placed on record copy of an entry from the Parivar Register, Annexure R-3/3, per which her year of birth is 1965. Selection was made in the year 2002. That means, …3… CWP (T) 8816 of 2008. respondent No. 3 was less than 45 years of age, at the relevant time. 6. Third and the last contention is that the distance, between the school and the residence of respondent No. 3, is more than 1.5 km. and hence, she could not have been awarded any marks on this score, but she had been awarded maximum marks. There is nothing showing that the distance, between the school and the house of respondent No. 3, is more than 1.5 km. 5. In view of the above stated position, present petition is dismissed. December 8, 2011 (PC) (Surjit Singh), J.