IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8743 of 2008 Date of decision: 05.04.2011. _______________________________________________________ Kanta Devi. ….. Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.C.Sankhyan, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional No.1 and 2. Advocate General. None for respondent No.3. For the Respondent : Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate. No.4. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has prayed a direction restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Gaddi , Tehsil Sujanpur with further direction that the respondents may be restrained from giving respondent No.4 appointment letter as Water Carrier in place of petitioner in Government Primary School, Gaddi. It has also been prayed that the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the interview held on 19.07.2002, the respondent No.4 has been Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 arbitrarily selected for appointment in place of petitioner as Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Gaddi, Tehsil Sujanpur. The long services rendered by the petitioner as Water Carrier have not been considered. She has preferential claim over respondent No.4 in all respects. The petitioner has relied on the policy decision Annexure A-6 of the Government which provides that Part Time Water Carrier appointed by PTA and who had worked up to December, 2000, are not to be replaced by fresh Part Time Water Carrier appointee. The petitioner had been working as Part Time Water Carrier and her appointment was already approved by PTA of the school and in support of this contention, the petitioner has relied on Annexure A-4 dated 13.06.2002. 3. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply. They have taken the stand that the respondent No.4 has been selected on the basis of her merit as she secured 20 marks in comparison to petitioner, who secured 19 marks in the interview. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that after selection, respondent No.4 has joined as Water Carrier and working as such in Government Primary School, Gaddi. 4. The Annexure P-6 is the letter dated 01.09.2001 of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education), according to which, since the matter was sub-judice, therefore, it was decided that Water Carriers appointed till 31.12.2000 may not be removed from service and their salaries be released till date. The letter dated 01.09.2001 does not provide that the Water Carriers appointed by PTA shall not be replaced by new appointees. 3 5. The respondent No.4 has secured more marks and she has already joined. The petitioner has failed to make out any case that the respondent No.4 has been wrongly selected and appointed. Moreover, the order dated 16.07.2007 indicates that one more candidate had secured 19.5 marks, whereas, the petitioner has secured only 19 marks. The candidate, who had secured 19.5 marks, has not been impleaded as a party in the petition and for this reason the petition is not maintainable. The respondent No.4 has specifically pleaded that the husband of the petitioner is in government job and her father-in-law is drawing pension from Army. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. April 5, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.