IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4723 of 2008. Decided on: 15.11.2010. __________________________________________________________ Mehandi Devi … 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. Harmeet Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Records of the case produced and perused. 2. The petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part-Time Water Carrier. Petitioner alongwith respondent No.4 had applied for the post in question. Their suitability has been adjudged by the duly constituted Selection Committee. Petitioner secured 17.5 marks and respondent No.4 has secured 20 marks. Petitioner has been given 10 marks for distance and 7.5 marks for being widow. Respondent No.4 has been given 10 marks for distance and 10 marks for being under I.R.D.P. category. In view of this, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - the respondent No.4 has secured more marks than the petitioner. Once the suitability of the petitioner and respondent No.4 has been gone into by the duly constituted Selection Committee, this Court will not sit in appeal over the same. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. November 15, 2010. (sck).