IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5921 of 2010. Decided on: 05.07.2010. Ms. Ashok Kumari. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Respondents No. 3 & 4, already exparte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Hathloon, Tehsil Bangana, District Una pursuant to the interview held on 17.08.2002. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that she was more meritorious vis-à-vis respondent No. 4 for the post of Part Time Water Carrier. According to the petitioner, her husband has donated land for the construction of Government School vide gift deed dated 17.06.1999 and no member from her family is employed either in Government/Semi Government Organization. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. 3. Ms. Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the respondents have not allotted five marks to the petitioner though her husband has donated land for the construction of Government School. She further contended that the selection of respondent No. 4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier is illegal, arbitrary and, thus, liable to be struck down. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the selection of respondent No. 4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. The State Government has issued notification dated 27.07.2001, whereby detailed procedure has been prescribed for filling up the post of Part Time Water Carriers in the schools of Education Department in Himachal Pradesh. Para-7(2) whereof provides that the candidates whose families have donated land for school, are entitled to get five additional marks. There is also provision that the candidates belonging to unemployed families shall be given five marks. In the instant case, the interviews were held on 17.08.2002. Petitioner and respondent No. 4 participated in the selection process, however, respondent No. 4 was declared successful since she has secured 21 marks and the petitioner has secured on 20 marks. A bare perusal of the reply initially filed by the respondent-State reveals that no marks were allotted to the petitioner for the land donated by her husband for the construction of Government School. The learned Tribunal sought clarification from the State why the marks have not been allotted to the petitioner under this category. The supplementary affidavit was filed by the Director of Primary Education on 24th October, 2005, whereby he took a stand that five marks for land donation were shown in the column of unemployed family erroneously, which should have been mentioned in land donation column in the reply to the original application. Alongwith the supplementary affidavit, the marks list prepared by the selection committee was also annexed vide Annexure D-I. It is apparent from Annexure D-I that petitioner has been granted five marks for donation of land. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure A-7 and A-8 to prove that no member from her family was employed in Government/Semi Government Organization. These two Annexures have been issued by the competent authority, however, surprisingly it is revealed from Annexure D-1 that five marks have not been allowed to the petitioner under the category of “Un- employed”. In case the five marks had been allowed to the petitioner she would have secured 25 marks instead of 20 marks given to her by the selection committee. Respondents No. 3 and 4 were proceeded exparte on 18.12.2002. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petitioner ought to have been allowed five marks under the un-employed category on the basis of Annexures P-7 and P-8 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Hatloon, Tehsil Bangana, District Una is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the basis of observations made hereinabove, within a period of four weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 05, 2010. (bhupender)