JUDGMENT B.S. Chauhan, Member (A).—Through this original application applicant i has challenged the selection/appointment of respondent No. 5 as Part I Time Water Carrier in GPS Thaplan, district Una with the further prayer to quash and set aside the same and to appoint the applicant against the said vacancy, as Part Time Water Carrier. 2. The brief and relevant facts of the case as set out in the original application are that the respondents invited applications for filling up the post of part time water carrier in GPS Thaplan. Interview were held for the post of part time water carrier on 7.8.2002 in which the applicant as well as respondent No. 5 alongwith others were interviewed. As per intimation given to all the candidates they were required to appear in the interview on the fixed date alongwith original certificates. The claim of the applicant is that he appeared for the interview before the selection committee alongwith required documents and other relevant papers. Subsequently he was not selected despite being meritorious and the name of respondent No. 5 was recommended for appointment which was done by the selection committee in an arbitrary manner by violating the scheme for appointment as part time water carrier. Accordingly he has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as part time water carrier in the above mentioned school. The applicant submitted in the original application that while the marks for donating land were wrongly given to respondent No. 5 whereas the applicant was not awarded in marks for donating land and for being a member of unemployed family. Feeling aggrieved by this the applicant has filed the present original application. 3. Reply was filed by the respondent/ state in which the claim of the applicant was disputed. The respondent No. 5 adopted the reply filed by respondent/state. It has been submitted in the reply that the selection of respondent No. 5 has been made on the recommendation of duly constituted selection committee under the Chairmanship of S.D.O. (c) provided under the guidelines issued by the State Government for the appointment of part time water carrier in the Education Department. The selection committee scrutinized the applications received by the respondents through wide publicity and awarded marks to all candi dates on the basis of documents submitted by the candidates at the time of interview. The selection committee scrutinized the applications received by the respondents through wide publicity and awarded marks to all candi dates on the basis of documents submitted by the candidates at the time of interview. On the basis of recommendation of the selection committee who secured highest marks has been appointed. Since respondent No. 5 had secured 29 marks and applicant secured only 17 marks, therefore, respondent No. 5 was afforded appointment on the recommendation of selection committee. 4. Rejoinder was filed by the applicant in which the stand taken in the reply was disputed and the claim made in the original application is re-affirmed. It has been specifically mentioned in the rejoinder that the interview for the post in dispute were held on 7.8.2002 and by that time respondent No. 5 has not executed sale deed for donating land in favour of respondent/state whereas the applicant had donated land for construction of school building as per Jamabandi Annexure A-3 long time back. Inspite of this the applicant was denied the benefit of donating land and on the contrary 5 marks were awarded to respondent No. 5 for donating land to the school. Record was called in this case and after perusal of the same the respondent/state was directed to file supplementary affidavit clarifying the position regarding two comparative marks sheets which were available on record. Accordingly supplementary affidavit was filed by the respondent/state in which it has been clarified that as per information received from respondent No. 3 i.e. Block Primary Education Officer Gagrate-I the comparative mark sheet which was not signed by the Chairman was prepared by respondent No. 3 roughly without giving any marks to the candidates for other categories, because the candidates submitted the certificates later on. It has been further submitted in the supplementary affidavit that the proforma of marks, which is signed by the Chairman selection committee is the original comparative marks sheet on the basis of which reply to the original application was prepared and filed before this Tribunal. In compliance to direction of this Tribunal, record was earlier produced on 12.4.2007 and during the course of hearing the official of respondent No. 3 had also shown the list signed and approved by the Chairman of the selection committee i.e. S.D.O. (C) Gagret. 5. In compliance to direction of this Tribunal, record was earlier produced on 12.4.2007 and during the course of hearing the official of respondent No. 3 had also shown the list signed and approved by the Chairman of the selection committee i.e. S.D.O. (C) Gagret. 5. I have heard Shri Onkar Jairath, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri H.K.S. Thakur, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State as well as Shri T.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and carefully perused the record. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicant argued that interview for the post of part time water carrier were held on 7.8.2002 and the eligibility of the candidate had to be seen on the date of interview. He pleaded further that Gift Deed vide which land was donated by the respondent No. 5 through registered deed is dated 29.9.2002. He also referred to stand taken in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit in which it has been mentioned that the marks were roughly given to the candidates because the candidates submitted their certificates later on. This position according to him is not only against spirit of the scheme, but also against the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court. In support of his claim he cited following case law: "1993 (1) SLR 544, Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan and others, 1997 (4) SCC 18, Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another. 2003 (1) Latest Himachal Law Judgments 227, Dr. Vinod Kashyap v. State of H.P. and others." The main assertion of the applicant is that marks awarded for donating land were wrongly given to respondent No. 5 whereas the applicant who had donated land much earlier as per Annexure A-3 which is Jamabandi for the year 1998-99 and the benefit for donating land was denied to him despite the certificate to that effect which was produced by him at the time of interview. Similarly he was also not given the benefit of being member of un-employed family despite requisite certificate produced by him at the time of interview. He vehemently argued that all the candidates were required to produce original certificates at the time of interview and no further time could have been given thereafter to produce such certificates claiming any benefit. Similarly he was also not given the benefit of being member of un-employed family despite requisite certificate produced by him at the time of interview. He vehemently argued that all the candidates were required to produce original certificates at the time of interview and no further time could have been given thereafter to produce such certificates claiming any benefit. In reply the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 rebutted the claim of learned Counsel for the applicant and stated that land was donated by the father of respondent No. 5 during 1996 as per agreement which is available on record. He contended further that selection of respondent No. 5 was made in accordance with the instructions of the State Government as reflected in the scheme circulated for selection/appointment of part time water carrier. The learned Deputy Advocate General admitted at the very out set that there are two mark sheets one of which is signed by some of the members whereas the other one is signed by all members of the selection committee including the Chairman of the selection committee i.e. S.D.O. (C) Gagret. He justified the preparation of these two mark sheets on the ground that final comparative mark sheet is only the genuine one which has been signed and approved by S.D.O. (C) concerned. He pleaded further that so far as the question of donating land is concerned, the same has to be donated by person concerned and it is not necessary to execute a registered deed regarding donation of such land. 8. The short controversy in this case relates to selection/appointment of respondent No. 5 in GPS Thaplan as part time water carrier. It is not in dispute that the selection was made through duly constituted committee, but the perusal of record reveals that selection/appointment of respondent No. 5 is not in accordance with instructions and as per procedure prescribed in the scheme for appointment 01 part time water carrier as circulated by the State Government. It is accepted position that there are two mark sheets available on record in which the marks awarded to the applicant as well as to some of other candidates interviewed by the selection committee are different in these two comparative marks sheets. It is accepted position that there are two mark sheets available on record in which the marks awarded to the applicant as well as to some of other candidates interviewed by the selection committee are different in these two comparative marks sheets. The first mark sheet has been signed by the some of the members, but the other comparative mark sheet has been signed by all the members I of the selection committee including the Chairman of the selection committee I reflects the marks which are not similar to the other list. Coming specifically to the case of the applicants while he has been given total of 27 marks in the first list by allowing him 5 marks each for donating land as well as for being member of un-employed family, but in the final marks sheet he has been awarded only 17 marks. This position has also been reflected in the reply filed by the respondent/state that he was finally given 17 marks. Perusal of record further reveals that applicant had produced copies of certificates, according to which no one was employed under the Government in his family and he had also filed revenue papers as well as copy of gift deed according to which land was given by his father Piare Lal for the school concerned. It is clear from perusal of record that no marks were given to him by the selection committee on these accounts as reflected in the final comparative mark sheet without assigning any reason. As a result he obtained only 17 marks against 27 marks which is claimed by him on the basis of above documents. It would be relevant to mention about the information given by the respondent/state in the supplementary affidavit filed by them clarifying the position about two mark sheets on record. It is admitted position in the supplementary affidavit that marks were given to the candidates much later after preparing the rough mark sheet because the candidates were permitted to submit their certificates even after interview which is contrary to instructions provided. It is in the scheme that the candidates are required to produce the original certificates at the time of interview and this position was duly conveyed to all the candidates before calling them for the interview. It is in the scheme that the candidates are required to produce the original certificates at the time of interview and this position was duly conveyed to all the candidates before calling them for the interview. The presence J of two mark sheets on record indicating different marks awarded to ft some of the candidates including the applicant also reflects on the propriety and fairness of entire selection process which appears to be arbitrary on the part of the selection committee and is violative of the instructions applicable to such recruitment of part time water carrier as per the scheme. In the light of above discussion the entire selection process in this case suffers from legal infirmities and there is flagrant violation of norms applicable to such selection, as notified by the State Government. The position explained by the respondent/state in the supplementary affidavit regarding two comparative marks sheets on record is neither convincing nor justified. i 9. Keeping in view this position the selection of respondent No. 5 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondents are at liberty to hold fresh interview for appointment of part time water carrier in GPS Thaplan in accordance with the instructions of the State Government after following the prescribed procedure. This original application is accordingly disposed with no order as to costs. Application disposed of.