IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP-T No. 2499 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.9.2011 Krishan Chand …Petitioner. Versus. Deputy Director Education & others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Deepak Gupta, J(Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.5 as Part Time Water Carrier. 2. The first grievance of the petitioner is that he had worked as Part Time Water Carrier without any remuneration for about 2 years, but this factor has not been taken into consideration. The second grievance is that he belongs to IRDP category and therefore, should have been awarded three marks. The third grievance is that though his father had 2 donated the land for the construction of the school, but he has not been awarded five marks and the five marks have wrongly been awarded to respondent No.5, under the head. 3. As far as the first two contentions are concerned, I have perused the notification dated 27th July, 2001 issued by the Education Department and in this notification there is no provision for granting marks to IRDP family and three marks are only awarded to candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC category. Similarly, there is no provision for grant of marks for having worked in a school without any salary. The division of the marks is as follows:- Total marks are 30 and they have been distributed in the following manner:- Maximum 10 marks for distance and the marks under this head can vary from 2 to 10. Five marks have been earmarked for those candidates whose families have donated the land. Three marks have been earmarked for candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC and five marks have been earmarked for candidates belonging to un-employed families and seven marks have been earmarked for viva voce. 4. I have perused the record and I find that the petitioner has been awarded 10 marks in the distance category. He was also awarded five marks for unemployment. He was not awarded any marks under the land donated category or for the 3 SC/ST/OBC category since as per notification dated 27th July, 2001 the petitioner does not fall under the said category and for granting marks this Court cannot give direction in this behalf. The petitioner was awarded total 18.50 marks whereas the total marks awarded to respondent No.5 were 25.50. Alongwith with the record I have perused the copy of the revenue record which shows that father of respondent No.5 had donated land in favour of the school and copy of gift deed is on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the marks have wrongly been awarded to respondent No.5 5. Coming to the petitioner, no doubt, there are some certificates stating that his father and uncle had donated some land to the school, but neither the gift deed nor any mutation nor other revenue record is available. Be that as it may, even if five marks were to be awarded to the petitioner under this head he will still get only 23.50 marks which is less than the marks awarded to respondent No.5 and could not have been selected. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. September 26, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (vt) Judge.