IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 8663 of 2008 Decided on: July 29, 2011 Bimla Devi ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 Sewak Ram Pardhan in person. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, who was a candidate alongwith respondent No.4 for the post of Water Carrier in Gram Panchayat, Neen, is aggrieved by the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 against the said post. Main ground, on which the appointment of respondent No.4 has been challenged, is that she has been wrongly assigned 10 marks for the distance between her village and the school. As per criteria, some marks are awarded for the Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É distance between the school and the residence of the candidates. Maximum marks are 10 and the person having residence upto a distance of 1.5 KM is awarded full marks, i.e. 10 marks under this sub-head. Petitioner’s claim is that residence of respondent No.4 is at a distance of 4 KM from village Neen, where the school is located, but she was assigned 10 marks by the Selection Committee and as a matter of fact, per criteria Annexure A-4, she was entitled to only 4 marks. 2. Respondents have denied the allegation and stated that the distance between the residence of respondent No.4 and school is 1.5 KM only and she was rightly awarded 10 Marks. They have placed on record a certificate, issued by the Patwari, which is Annexure R-1, per which the distance between the school and the residence of respondent No.4 is 1.5. KM. 3. Petitioner relies upon a certificate of PWD people, copy Annexure A-8, filed with the rejoinder, per which the distance between the residence of respondent No.4 and village Neen, where the school is located, is 4 KM. 4. This Court would not hold an inquiry as to which of the two certificates, i.e. Annexure R1, relied upon by the respondents and issued by the Patwari in favour of respondent No.4 or the certificate, Annexure A-8, relied É3É upon by the petitioner and issued by PWD authorities, is correct. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Disposed of. July 29, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.