IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8941 of 2008. Decided on: 09.12.2010. _________________________________________________________ Hem Raj. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.3 and 4 ex-parte. Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he has not been appointed as Part-Time Water Carrier. The interview for filling up the post in question was held on 22.7.2002. Petitioner along with one Taro Devi was considered by the Selection Committee. Taro Devi has been appointed as Part-Time Water Carrier. Even on merit, the petitioner has not established conclusively that he was ever appointed by the competent authority before the interview was held on 22.7.2002. 2. Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since her client was appointed before 22.7.2002, he was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - required to be retained as Part-Time Water Carrier. However, the fact of the matter is that as per letter dated 2.1.1997 only those Part-Time Water Carriers were to be retained who had been appointed either by the Parents Teachers Association or by the concerned Gram Panchayat prior to 31.3.1996. In this case, even as per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as per resolution, dated 9.2.1998. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 09, 2010. (sck).