JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Mittian. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that she was more meritorious vis-à-vis respondent No. 5 and the Gram Panchayat has favourably recommended her case by passing a resolution 27.05.2006. 3. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of respondents No. 1 to 3 to appoint respondent No. 5 to the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Mittian is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, his client was more meritorious, since she belongs to I.R.D.P. category and the distance from Primary School is also 200 meters. He also argued that no member from her family is in Government or Semi Government Service. 4. Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate have supported the appointment letter issued to respondent No. 5 on 12.07.2006. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Respondent No. 5 also belongs to B.P.L. family, since his income is assessed at ` 10,000/- per annum. He is physically challenged to the extent of 60% as per Annexure R-5/2. The appointment of respondent No. 5 has been made under Rule 12 of the Scheme being physically handicapped person. The appointment of respondent No. 5 was approved by the State Government and thereafter, the Director, Primary Education has informed the Deputy Director, Primary Education, Solan to take necessary steps. On 12.07.2006, the Deputy Director, Primary Education, Solan has requested respondent No. 4 to permit the petitioner to join his duties. The Court is of the considered view that respondent No. 5 deserves to be appointed being physically challenged to the extent of 60%, as Part Time Water Carrier. The appointment of respondent No. 5 was duly approved by the State Government under Rule 12 of the Scheme. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.