Judgment Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner in this case has challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 as Part-time Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School, Dhar, Centre Pathiar, Education Block, Nurpur mainly on the ground that before her employment as Part-time Water Carrier she was already working as Mid Day Meal Worker and getting salary of Rs.1,000/- per month and therefore, was ineligible for being appointed. 2. We had called for the replies of the Pradhan, President of the School Management Committee and the Centre Head Teacher and they have now all admitted that in fact the private respondent was working as Mid Day Meal Worker. As far as the Centre Head Teacher is concerned he has stated that prior to the filing of the petition he was unaware of this fact since he works in some other school. As far as the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and the President of the School Management Committee are concerned according to them they had issued the non-employment certificate and also given marks for non employment to respondent No.6 because they were under the impression that employment as Mid Day Meal Worker is not a Government service or Civil employment. 3. One of the issues involved in this case is whether the certificates issued by the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and the Pradhan of the School Management Committee to the effect that no family member of respondent No.6 is in employment are correct or not. Admittedly, respondent No.6 was working as Mid Day Meal Worker in Govt. Primary School, Dhar, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. The stand now taken is that this is not employment since only honorarium is paid to the Mid Day Meal Workers. Non-employment certificate which has been issued in the present case not only depicts that the person is unemployed but also shows that none of his/her family members is serving in any Government/Semi Government or other private job. Once the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat or the President of the School Management Committee are aware that an individual is working as a Mid Day Meal Worker then even if they are not sure whether this amounts to civil employment or Govt. service or not they while issuing the certificate must indicate that the person is employed as a Mid Day Meal Worker or holds any other post for which honorarium is paid, such as, Anganwari Worker, etc. service or not they while issuing the certificate must indicate that the person is employed as a Mid Day Meal Worker or holds any other post for which honorarium is paid, such as, Anganwari Worker, etc. It shall be for the Selection Committee to decide whether this is a bar to employment or not but the certificate must indicate that the applicant to whom the certificate has been granted is doing some work and also indicate the nature of her/his work and the amount of salary/honorarium/stipend. 4. It is for the Selection Committee to decide whether the marks for being unemployed should be given to a candidate or not but prima facie we are of the opinion that the purpose of the scheme is to help those who have no job and not to help those who want to shift from one job to another. We are clearly of the view that when a person holds the post of Mid Day Meal Worker and gets a honorarium of Rs.1000/- per month that person cannot be considered to be unemployed person and would not be entitled to any marks on this account. 5. The respondent No.6 has made another submission. According to her, her husband Sh. Purshotam Singh donated land for setting up of the school and therefore, she should have been awarded some marks for donation of land. 6. We are not at all impressed with this argument. From the material on record it is apparent that on 15.11.2011 a certificate was issued that the post of Part-time Water Carrier is lying vacant in Govt. Primary School, Dhar. Thereafter applications were invited in November, 2011 itself to fill up the post and the Selection Committee interviewed the candidates on 23.11.2011. The land has been donated by the husband of the private respondent No.6 vide gift deed which was executed and registered on 9.12.2011 i.e. after the interviews had taken place. We also find from the material placed on record that this land which was gifted by the husband of respondent No.6 was in fact not owned by him and he got this land in exchange just a few days earlier sometime in November, 2011 itself. 7. This case raises an important issue. The State has a policy of rewarding those persons who have donated land for construction of school, etc. 7. This case raises an important issue. The State has a policy of rewarding those persons who have donated land for construction of school, etc. by giving them some weightage/marks when appointments are made in such schools. We find no infirmity if the donation has been made as a donation not expecting anything in return. However, we are clearly of the view that this cannot become a means of virtually purchasing government jobs. Once the job is advertised or it is known that a post is likely to become vacant in a school, persons may start donating land to the school with the sole objective of getting job for themselves or for their next kin. This would mean that those who own lot of land or those who are rich virtually push out those who cannot afford to donate land. In the present case the donation of land actually took place after the selection process was over which clearly indicates that it was only done with the purpose of ensuring a job for respondent No.6. This itself highlights the misuse of such a provision. We, therefore, direct that henceforth in any job where some marks are to be given or preference is to be given to a person who or whose family members have donated land the donation should have taken place at least one year prior to the job being advertised otherwise no marks should be given. 8. In view of the above discussion we allow the writ petition, quash the selection of respondent No.6 and direct that the person next in merit in the selection process should be appointed. We also make it clear that if any person is aggrieved by the selection of the person next in merit he/she shall be entitled to challenge the selection of such a person in accordance with law. 9. We direct the Register General to send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who shall circulate the same to all concerned to ensure that in future proper non-employment certificates are issued and also to ensure that marks/weightage/preference for donation of land is given only in those cases where the land has been donated at least one year prior to the post being advertised/notified.