IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 56 of 2010 Judgment reserved on : 11.07.2011 Date of decision: 13.07.2011. Piar Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P.& others. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.5. Kuldip Singh, J This petition has been filed for quashing selection/appointment of respondent No.5 as part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Harlog, with a further direction to respondents to appoint petitioner as part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Harlog, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 28.6.2002, for the post of part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Harlog. The petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste category, he is an IRDP, no person from his family is serving in Government or Semi Government Organization. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… distance of the school from his residence is 500 meters. The petitioner appeared in the interview, he was hopeful of being selected but the respondents selected respondent No.5 in violation of Scheme for appointment of part time water carrier. 3. The respondents have not given marks to petitioner as per Scheme. The uncle of respondent No.5 was Pardhan of the Gram Panchayat. The family of selected candidate is having 40 bighas land, four shops on road side and STD booth. The brother of the selected candidate is serving in army. The selection of respondent No.5 as part time water carrier is contrary to Scheme on account of political pressure and is liable to be set aside. 4. The respondents No.1 to 3 have contested the petition by filing reply. It has been stated that selection of respondent No.5 has been made on the recommendation of duly constituted committee under the chairmanship of SDO (C) as provided under the instruction/guidelines issued by the State Govt. for appointment of part time water carrier in the Education Department. The other members of the selection committee were Pardhan of the concerned Panchayat and Block Primary Education Officer. The petitioner had secured 21 marks and 22 marks were secured by respondent No.5. On the basis of merit respondent No.5 was selected. The remaining stand of the petitioner was denied. 5. The respondent No.5 has filed separate reply. It has been denied that selection of respondent No.5 is in violation of Scheme and contrary of law. The brother of respondent No.5 is in army but he constitutes a separate family since long. It has been …3… denied that selection of respondent No.5 was due to political intervention. It has been stated that respondent No.5 has been selected on merit. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the record produced by learned Addl. Advocate General. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing has pressed only ground that selection/appointment of respondent No.5 as part time water carrier is illegal as his brother was serving in army and therefore, respondent No.5 was not eligible for appointment. The Clause 7(iii) of the Scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers in the schools of Education Department provides that preference will be given to candidates who are from families without any member in Govt. service. 7. The merit list indicates that in all 15 applicants were considered for the post of part time water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Harlog. The petitioner and three others had secured 21 marks and 22 marks were secured by respondent No.5 and he was selected. The petitioner has heavily relied on letter dated 14.8.2010 of Panchayat Secretary addressed to Block Development Officer, Ghumarwin indicating that nothing has been shown in the family register when Rakesh Kumar son of Prem Singh, R/o village Harlog had separated, however, as per house tax register tax had been realized from him from the year 2004-2005. The petitioner has placed on record copy of family register wherein name of respondent No.5 Ravi Kumar has been recorded, but Rakesh Kumar son of Prem …4… Singh has not been shown in the family in which Ravi Kumar has been shown as member. 8. In the record produced by learned Addl. Advocate General the family of Prem Singh father of respondent No.5 consists of Prem Singh, Premi Devi, Ravi Kumar, Kanchana Devi and Kiran, but the name of Rakesh Kumar has not been included in the family of Prem Singh. In the record there is a certificate dated 11.5.2011 of President Gram Panchayat, Harlog indicating that Rakesh Kumar elder brother of Ravi Kumar is in Govt. service who as per Panchayat record is living separately since 2.2.2000. The interview for the post of part time water carrier was fixed on 23.7.2002 and therefore, eligibility of the respondent No.5 was to be seen on the date of application/interview. On or about 23.7.2002 Rakesh Kumar brother of respondent No.5 was not member of family of respondent No.5 or Prem Singh, hence it cannot be said that selection/appointment of respondent No.5 as part time water carrier is illegal on the ground that his brother Rakesh Kumar at the time of his selection/appointment was in army. There is no merit in the petition. The respondent No.5 has been selected on merits. It has not been pointed out how selection of respondent No.5 on merits is bad. 9. No other point was urged. 10. The result of above discussion, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. July 13, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ), (sks) Judge.