IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8797 of 2008. Date of Decision : June 27, 2011 Shanti Devi … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents: Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents-State. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) That the impugned appointment of respondent No. 5 may very kindly be quashed and set aside thereby directing respondents No. 1 to 4 to reconsider the candidature of the applicant and give her appointment letter to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Teuri, Tehsil and District Una, forthwith. (b) That the record pertaining to the selection and interview qua the applicant as well as respondent No. 5 may very kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 this Hon’ble Tribunal and after perusing the same the impugned appointment of respondent No. 5 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. Having perused the affidavit placed on record it is evident that private respondent was found to be more meritorious than the petitioner by the Selection Committee who accordingly recommended the name of the private respondent for the post of Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Teuri, Tehsil and District Una where she is satisfactory discharging her duties for almost one decade. Respondent No. 5 is daughter-in-law of real sister of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. But however this fact by itself would not vitiate her selection for the reason that the said relationship does not entail disqualification under the provisions of Section 30 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. 3. For the aforesaid reasons we find that there is no illegality in the impugned action. However in the interest of justice we direct that as and when any post of Water Carrier falls vacant in the school, case of the petitioner shall be preferentially considered for appointment if she otherwise fulfills the eligibility criteria. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 27, 2011 (PK)