IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 783 of 2004 Decided on: April 22, 2009. Dharam Chand …..Petitioner. VERSUS State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5. Mr. Surinder Sharma, vice counsel for respondent No. 4. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, counsel for respondent No. 6. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has sought judicial review of order dated 27th July, 2004 of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, (now abolished), whereby Original Application No. 2614 of 2002, which he filed for quashing the appointment of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… respondent No. 6, Smt. Sheela Devi as part-time water carrier, has been dismissed. 2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. There fell a vacancy of part-time water carrier in Government Primary School, Khalerh, some time in the year 2002. Due publicity of vacancy was given to the residents of the area. Several persons applied for the job, including the present petitioner, and respondent No. 6. Candidates were interviewed by a committee, headed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), respondent No.2 herein. Other members of the committee were respondent No.4, Pradhan of the Panchayat and Block Primary Education Officer, respondent No. 5. Committee selected respondent No. 6 and she was appointed. Petitioner, who was also a candidate, felt aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No. 6 and filed Original Application seeking the quashing of her appointment and his own appointment in her place, on the ground that he was better qualified than respondent No. 6 and that he was also more capable of performing the duties of water carrier, than respondent No.6, the latter being a woman and as such not used to hard work. Another ground, on which the relief was sought, was that the petitioner was the resident of the very village where school is situated, while respondent No. 6 resided at a distance of more than five kilometers from the school building. …3… 3. Respondents opposed the Original Application. They stated that interview Board found respondent No. 6 more suitable for the job and consequently selected and appointed her. 4. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application holding that respondent No. 6 scored more marks than the petitioner and, therefore, her appointment was not liable to be set aside. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel representing the respondents and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 5 marks had been awarded to respondent No. 6 on account of her having donated the land for the school, but in fact, she had not donated any land. The submission is without merit and requires outright rejection for the simple reason that such a point had not been raised before the learned Tribunal. We have been taken through the scheme and guidelines for selection of candidates for the post of water carrier. No marks are prescribed for educational qualification and, therefore, the plea of petitioner that he, being better qualified than respondent No. 6, ought to have been given preference, also merits rejection. 7. Another submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No. 6 ought not to have been awarded any …4… marks on account of the distance between her residence and the school building as she resided at a distance of more than five kilometer. No doubt, the petitioner has alleged that the residence of respondent No. 6 is at a distance of five kilometer from the school building, but there is no material on record in support of this contention. Respondent No. 6 has denied the allegation and also submitted a certificate, issued by the Pradhan of Panchayat, indicating that distance between her residence and school building is only 2 k.m. 8. In view of the above stated position, we see no ground for interfering with the order of the learned Tribunal. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. ( R.B.Misra ) Judge April 22, 2009(K) ( Surjit Singh ) Judge