JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present writ petition is maintained by the petitioner for directing respondents No. 1 to 4 for considering her case for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier and quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier. 2. As per the petitioner, she is a widow and belongs to BPL family and her case for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Saroh, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P., was forwarded by Pardhan, School Management Committee. The request of School Management Committed was approved by the State Government vide letter dated 30.06.2014. Conversely, respondent No. 5, Smt. Parmila Devi, was selected in place of the petitioner, who was not eligible for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier, as the petitioner’s appointment had already been approved. 3. It is further averred by the petitioner that husband of respondent No. 5 is alive and, therefore, benefit of Rule 12 of Part Time Water Carrier Scheme, 2011, cannot be extended to her. As per the petitioner, her case was approved on 02.06.2014 for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier and her selection was never withdrawn by the respondents, therefore, appointment of respondent No. 5 and not of the petitioner is against law. 4. The petitioner further averred that respondents No. 2 to 4 did not issue appointment letter to her, despite the approval of her candidature and kept the matter pending, whereas they instantly issued appointment letter to respondent No. 5. The action of respondents No. 1 to 4 is highly discriminatory, unfair and arbitrary. The petitioner is a widow and she has to maintain two children. 5. On the other hand, respondents No. 1 to 4 have stated in their reply that respondent No. 3, being the Appointing Authority, started the process for appointment of respondent No. 5, vide letter dated 23.07.2014, and respondent No. 5 was asked to submit the desired documents for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier, as her appointment was approved by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 10.07.2014. The approval of appointment of petitioner was received in the office of respondent No. 3 on 01.08.2014 through fax, and the petitioner could not be appointed as her approval was received late. The appointment of respondent No. 5 was made purely on first come first serve basis. 6. The approval of appointment of petitioner was received in the office of respondent No. 3 on 01.08.2014 through fax, and the petitioner could not be appointed as her approval was received late. The appointment of respondent No. 5 was made purely on first come first serve basis. 6. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have further averred that as per the policy, respondent No. 5 was eligible for being appointed as Part Time Water Carrier, as she is a widow and also belongs to low income group. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Respondent No. 5 has also filed reply to the writ petition and it is contended by her that she is a widow belonging to BPL category. Her case for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier was approved by the Government as per the Policy and consequently she had furnished all the required documents to respondent No. 3 and after verification of the documents, she was appointed on 02.08.2014. She joined as such on 04.08.2014 and till date she is discharging the duty of Part Time Water Carrier. It is also averred that respondent No. 5 has a child of three years of age. She is 12th pass and has also done one year computer course. 8. Respondent No. 5 further submitted that she had applied for appointment as Part Time Water Carrier and her name was approved for appointment. Consequently, respondent No. 2 issued direction to respondent No. 3, being the Appointing Authority, to verify her documents. It is only after scrutiny of her documents that she was found eligible for being appointed as Part time Water Carrier and she was appointed as such on 02.08.2014 and she joined on 04.08.2014. The appointment of the petitioner was made solely on first come first serve basis and under the provisions of Rule 12 of Part Time Water Carrier Scheme, 2011. 9. As per respondent No. 5 she, as per the Policy, is eligible for the post of Part Time Water Carrier, as she is widow and belongs to low income group. Respondent No. 5 also submitted that she is suffering from breast tumour and is under treatment from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record in detail. 11. Respondent No. 5 also submitted that she is suffering from breast tumour and is under treatment from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record in detail. 11. The petitioner belongs to BPL family and she is widow and having two children who are dependent upon her. On 04.08.2014, the Pardhan, School Management Committee, Government Senior Secondary School, Saroh, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. has recommended to the Deputy Director Higher Education, Una, that the petitioner be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier, as her name had been approved by Hon’ble Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh for the said post. Annexure P-6 shows that Hon’ble Chief Minister had approved the appointment of the petitioner on 02.05.2014, but it is on record that the Pardhan, School Management Committee, has issued the recommendation only on 04.08.2014 to the Deputy Director, Higher Education, Una. At the same point of time, the Deputy Director, Higher Education, Una, made the appointment of respondent No. 5 on 02.08.2014 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Senior Secondary School, Saroh, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. As per respondents No. 1 to 4, the process for the appointment of respondent No. 5 was started on 23.07.2014, as per the approval received in the office of respondent No. 3 on 10.07.2014, from the office of respondent No. 2, and the approval for the appointment of the petitioner was received in the office of respondent No. 3 on 01.08.2014. As the approval for the appointment of respondent No. 5 was received prior to the approval of the petitioner, she was ordered to be appointed by respondent No. 3. 12. The reply is supported by the affidavit of Director Higher Education. There is also nothing on record to show that the Director Higher Education was having any malice or ill-will towards the petitioner. It is observed that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5, both are widows, belonging to BPL families and are nearly similarly situated except that the petitioner has to feed two children whereas respondent No. 5 has to feed a child and she is also suffering from breast tumour. It is observed that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5, both are widows, belonging to BPL families and are nearly similarly situated except that the petitioner has to feed two children whereas respondent No. 5 has to feed a child and she is also suffering from breast tumour. The relevant extract of the policy (Part Time Water Carrier Scheme, 2011), is extracted as under: “The Government will have the power to appoint any candidate as Part Time Water Carrier on compassionate round without following the selection process if the candidate is below the poverty or has a Low Income Certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar, SDO © or executive Magistrate of the concerned area and if the candidate is a: (i) widow, or (ii) Member of family living in extreme indigent conditions. Family includes father, mother and their children (This certificate will be issued not below the rank of SDO (C) Or (iii) Women deserted by the husband or otherwise destitute, or (iv) Handicapped persons; or (v) An orphan” 13. As discussed above, respondents No. 1 to 4 issued the appointment order to respondent No. 5, as her recommendation was received in the office of respondent No. 3 prior in time to the recommendation of the petitioner and the appointment is made as per the Policy referred hereinabove, so it cannot be said that the appointment of respondent No. 5 is against law/rules. 14. In view of the above discussion, the action of respondents No. 1 to 4 cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal and against the confines of legitimacy or vitiated by any other reason, so there is no reason to quash the appointment of respondent No. 5 and direct respondents No. 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner in place of respondent No. 5. Being devoid of merits, the writ petition dismissed. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 15. The writ petition, so also pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of.