IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No. 871 of 2006 Date of Decision : June 18, 2008 Gobind Singh …Petitioner. Versus: State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R. B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. B. N. Misra, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A. G. For respondent No.4 : Mr. B. S. Chauhan, Advocate. R. B. Misra, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.4.2006 passed by learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (in short called Ld. Tribunal) in O.A. No. 1782/2002, whereby the original application of Shri Sat Pal (respondent No.4 herein) was allowed. 2. It appears the selection to the post of Part Time Water Carrier was to be made by the State Government. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 along with other candidates applied to the post and the selection was to be made 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on the parameters prescribed for which certain marks were allocated. It appears in view of the Notification dated 27.7.2001 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Education Department, certain category of candidates were to be awarded preferential five marks, to such candidates whose families had denoted the land to the State Government. It appears the petitioner was awarded marks in different items along with respondent No.4 where the later one was also awarded preferential five marks in reference to the land having been denoted by his family to the State Government. Since the said five marks indicated by the Selection Committee in favour of respondent No.4 were not added in the aggregated marks awarded to him. It appears keeping in view the marks received by the candidates, the petitioner was given an appointment to the post of Part Time Water Carrier, whereas, if five marks awarded in favour of respondent No.4 were added then the position could have been different, therefore the respondent No.4 preferred O.A. No.1782 of 2002. 3. Keeping in view the assertions made in the original application and taking into consideration rival contentions and rejoinder as well as sur-rejoinder affidavit filed by the respondents authorities, learned Tribunal has noticed that a piece of land belonging to the family of respondent No.4 was already in possession of the State Government, Education Department way back and the school building was constructed 3 thereon in the year 1996 itself. Certificate to that effect was already given by the Patwari way back in July, 2007. Keeping in view such five marks directed to be added in the aggregate marks scored by the respondent No.4. 4. After perusal of records, learned Tribunal has arrived at finding that giving benefit of five marks, were to be added to the total marks awarded in favour of respondent No.4 which comes to 25.75, whereas, the total marks awarded to the petitioner were only 22.37. Accordingly, the original application was allowed with a direction to issue an appointment order in favour of respondent No.4 treating him meritorious out of the selected candidates. 5. It has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no express pleading in the original application as well as in any of the documents that the family of respondent No.4 had denoted the land to the Education Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, it has been emphatically stated on behalf of the respondents as well as counsel for respondent No.4 that the land belonging to the family of respondent No.4 was already in possession of the Education Department, whereon, a building of Education Department was constructed and was functional, however, certain formalities were completed at subsequent stage. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents. 4 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances after perusal of records, we are of the considered view that the land belonging to the family of respondent No.4 since was already made available to the Education Department of State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, the benefit of awarding five marks as indicated in para 7(2) of Notification dated 27.7.2001 (Annexure A-1) i.e. benefit of :- “For candidates whose families have denoted land for school” have rightly been extended to respondent No.4. Learned Tribunal has correctly arrived at above finding. There is no scope of any interference in the impugned order. The writ petition of the petitioner being devoid of merits, is dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), Judge. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 18, 2008 (rana)