IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 8771 of 2008. Reserved on: 31.12.2010. Decided on 06.01.2011. _____________________________________________________ Barjinder Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondents No. 4 and 5. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondents No. 5 and 6 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Jalarian-II and Government Primary School, Guler. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the respondent No. 6, Smt. Usha Devi has never applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jalarian-II. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 was also not eligible and she has wrongly been considered for the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Guler. 3. The records were called for. It is evident from the records that respondent No. 5 has applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Guler. She has secured 22 marks and was offered appointment letter. Petitioner has not applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Guler. Petitioner and respondent No. 6 have applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jalarina-II. Petitioner has secured 23 marks and respondent No. 6 has secured 24 marks. In fact, both the Schools fall in Gram Panchayat, Guler. 4. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there is tampering in the final result compiled by the Selection Committee. I have perused the records produced by the respondent-State. There is neither any tampering nor over-writing in the records, as alleged by the petitioner. 5. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge January 06, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `