IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 12611 of 2008. Decided on September 22, 2011. Sanjay Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. For respondent No. 4 Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) It is alleged in the petition, that petitioner had been recommended for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier, in Government Primary School, Thankar, by Hon’ble Chief Minister, in the year 2004. However, petitioner was not appointed and instead, respondent No. 4 had been appointed. As petitioner felt aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No. 4, so he filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking issuance of direction to respondents 1 to 3, to annul the appointment of respondent No. 4 and to appoint him in her place. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - 2. Respondents, in their reply, do not deny that Hon’ble Chief Minister had recommended the case of the petitioner, for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier. However, it is alleged that petitioner was not eligible for appointment, as his income was reported to be not exceeding `6200/-, which implied that his income was around `6200/- per annum. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. It is not correct that petitioner’s income was `6200/- per annum, as is being projected by the respondents. In fact, the Certificate, copy Annexure P-3, is to the effect that his income did not exceed the upper limit for including a family in the list of Below Poverty Line families which is `6200/- per annum at that time. From this certification, it cannot be assumed that income of the petitioner was around `6200/- per annum. His income could have been anything below `6200/- per annum. There is nothing on record indicating that respondent No. 4 was not eligible for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier. She is alleged to have been appointed, because she fulfilled the eligibility criteria, prescribed in Rule 12 of the relevant rules. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to controvert the reply. 5. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that posts of Part Time Water Carriers are available in other primary schools of the area. In view of this submission, writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to - 3 - respondent No. 3, to consider the petitioner for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier, in some other Primary School of the area, where the post may be lying vacant. Petition stands disposed of. September 22, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.