IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 4531/2008 Decided on:23.4.2010 _____________________________________________ Jeevan Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 as Part Time Water Carrier. The petitioner claims that he started working as Volunteer Teacher-cum Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Kelthar. He has relied upon experience certificates issued by the Head Master, Government Primary School, Kelthar and Up-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Dhalwan, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi to substantiate his case. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of letter dated 30.11.1996, he should be deemed to have been appointed as Part Time Water Carrier under the scheme with effect from 6.7.1996. 2. Mr. Bimal Gupta on the basis of Annexures A-4 and A-5 has strenuously argued that the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier is contrary to law. According to him, his client should be deemed to have been appointed as Part Time Water Carrier on the basis of letter dated 30.11.1996. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The Government of Himachal Pradesh has framed the recruitment scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier in the schools of Education Department vide notification dated 6.7.1996. The appointment is to be made by a Selection Committee to be constituted by the Government in the Education Department. Paras No.3, 4 and 5 of the scheme deal with eligibility criteria, advertisement and interview & marks. There is a provision for waiting list also as per para 6. The State Government has issued letter dated 30.11.1996 whereby it has been decided that Part Time Water Carriers appointed by the Parent Teacher Association or Local Panchayat prior to 31.3.1996 and continuing to work as such shall be deemed to be appointed as Water Carriers 3 under the scheme with effect from 6.7.1996. The text of letter dated 30.11.1996 reads thus: “I am directed to refer to your letter No. EDN-(ii)(1) 8(6)-18/88 dated 4.11.96 on the subject cited above. It has been decided that water carriers appointed by the Parent Teacher Association, or locals Panchayat on honorary basis prior to 31.3.1996 and continuing to work as such shall be deemed to be appointed as water carriers under the scheme with effect from 6.7.96. As regards approval of instructions for selection of part time water carriers as requested by you vide letter dated 16.11.96 it may be pointed out here that in view of the Notification of the scheme for the appointment of water carrier and the constitution of the selection committee nothing more is to be done at the Government level. The selection committee is to interview eligible candidates where the appointments have not been made by the Government on compassionate grounds.” 6. A bare perusal of letter dated 30.11.1996, reproduced hereinabove, reveals that the appointment is required to be made either by the Parent Teacher Association or by the Local Panchayat on honorary basis prior to 31.3.1996. In the instant case, the petitioner has only relied upon Annexures A-4 and A-5. Annexure A-4 is experience certificate issued by the Head Master, Government Primary School, Kalther. Similarly, Annexure P-5 is also experience certificate issued by the Up-Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Close scrutiny of Annexures A-4 and A-5 reveals that the petitioner was engaged on the request of the 4 local people. The appointment was required to be made on the basis of resolution made either by the Parent Teacher Association or the Local Panchayat. The petitioner has failed to place on record any resolution passed either by the Parent Teacher Association or by the Local Panchayat. In view of this, the petitioner cannot take benefit of letter dated 30.11.1996. Petitioner has also participated in the selection process with respondent No.4. Petitioner has been awarded 20 marks and respondent No.4 has been awarded 25 marks by the Selection Committee. Once the suitability of the candidate has been adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee, this Court will not sit over in appeal over the same as Appellate Authority. The petitioner has not alleged any mala fides either against the Chairman or the Members of the Selection Committee. Moreover, the petitioner was appointed as Volunteer Teacher-cum-Water Carrier and not Part Time Water Carrier alone. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.4.2010 *awasthi*