1 2026:HHC:18154 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.260 of 2026 Decided on: 15.05.2026 Uploaded on : 19.05.2026 Babli Devi ......Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surjeet Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge The appellant feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.04.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.2337 of 2018, titled, Babli Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal are that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:18154 material evidence produced by the appellant and completely failed to appreciate the undisputed fact regarding distance from the house of present appellant to the School, which is only one and a half kilometres. Further, the learned Single Judge has erred in placing reliance upon the enquiry reports submitted by the Naib Tehsildar and Block Development Officer, despite inconsistencies and findings therein. The authorities while preparing the reports, had not adopted the proper methodology. 3. The undisputed facts are that the Head Teacher of Government Primary School Bara, Block Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., had called for a walk-in-interview for the post of Part Time Water Carrier to be held on 23.12.2011. Four candidates including the appellant had appeared in the interview conducted by the Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., and the appellant was selected as a Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Bara, Block Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. 4. The appointment of the appellant was challenged by respondents No.8 & 9, who had also participated in the 3 2026:HHC:18154 interview on the ground that the marks allotted to the appellant, on the basis of the distance criteria were wrong. As per the criteria laid down in the policy for appointment of a Part Time Water Carrier in the Schools by the State Government, 10 marks were to be awarded to a candidate, residing within a distance of up to 1.5 kms from the village to School. In the case of the appellant, she was awarded 10 marks. The relevant extract of criteria stipulated in the policy is as under: 1 For candidates of village/town at distance a) Up to 1.5 kms from school 10 marks b) Up to 2 kms from school 08 marks c) Up to 3 kms from school 06 marks d) Up to 4 kms from school 04 marks e) Up to 5 kms from school 02 marks 5. The representations made by respondents No.8 & 9 were disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra H.P., vide order dated 09.12.2013, directing the Chairman of the Selection Committee-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., to ascertain by way of an inquiry, the factum of the exact distance between the house of the appellant and School. In the meanwhile, the appellant had 4 2026:HHC:18154 preferred CWP No.687 of 2016 before this Court and the said petition was disposed of on 18.11.2016, directing the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., to conduct inquiry in terms of the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, uninfluenced by any of the documents. 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the inquiry was initially conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Kotla, who submitted his report qua the distance between the Government Primary School Bara, Block Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., and house of the appellant and mentioned that the distance is approximately 3 kms, in which 2.5 kms is the road distance and 500 mtrs. is the path distance. The report so submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Kotla was objected to by the appellant and a prayer was made that the report should be called from the office of BDO concerned and her statement to this effect was recorded. Thereafter, the BDO had furnished the report and reported that the distance from the house of the appellant and Govt. Primary School Bara is 3.250 kms. 7. As per the notification of the Government, the appellant was entitled to get only 6 marks, since under the 5 2026:HHC:18154 policy upto 3 kms from school, the candidate was entitled to 6 marks. As per the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., the merit was redrawn and the appellant scored 16 marks, whereas one Pawan Singh scored 20.0 marks as mentioned in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. The Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the report came to the conclusion that the appellant had submitted misleading documents and, therefore, accepted the inquiry report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. The entire selection process for the post of Part Time Water Carrier held on 23.12.2011 was quashed with further directions that fresh interview be conducted as per the policy guidelines of the Department of Education for the recruitment of Part Time Water Carrier. 8. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire facts stated-above and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, came to the conclusion that even the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Kotla, was objected to, by the appellant and requested for fresh report from the BDO concerned. Once as per the report of the BDO, 6 2026:HHC:18154 it is clear that the exact distance between the house of the appellant and Government Primary School Bara, Block Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., was approximately 3.250 kms, which is almost same as to the distance mentioned in the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Kotla, which fact cannot be disputed by the appellant. No reliance can be placed on the certificate produced by her on record and further disputed question of facts are not to be gone into in writ proceedings. The report submitted by the BDO concerned is an official document, which carries presumption of truth. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has though made a submission that the judgment under challenge is contrary to the record, but the said contention is not supported by any material inasmuch as once the appellant had not accepted the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar Kotla, wherein the distance from her house to the Government Primary School Bara, Block Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., was mentioned 3 kms. approximately 2.5 kms. by road and 500 metres by path and thereafter the BDO was appointed to ascertain the actual distance at her request, who had given the report that the distance between the house of the 7 2026:HHC:18154 appellant to that of Government Primary School Bara, Block Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., is 3.250 kms. Therefore, this Court cannot disbelieve the said report and the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact in writ proceedings. 10. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the distance between the house of the appellant and Government Primary School Bara, Block Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., is only one and a half kilometres cannot be believed, especially, when at her instance, the BDO was asked to submit his report, who submitted that the distance is 3.250 kms. 11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant being a widow is entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of Clause 12 of the Policy framed by the State Government, but the said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the appellant had participated in the selection process and the candidates had been awarded marks on the basis of the criteria laid down in the policy. Further, the appellant had 8 2026:HHC:18154 misrepresented the facts as categorically observed by the Deputy Commissioner, who while passing the order on 11.09.2018 had quashed the entire selection process to the post of Part Time Water Carrier held on 23.12.2011, which order has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, which does not require interference. 12. The Deputy Commissioner had directed to conduct the fresh interviews for the post of Part Time Water Carrier and the learned Single Judge of this Court has also given the direction to complete the process as early as possible and thus no infirmity can be found with the order under challenge and the appeal being bereft of any substance is rejected. 13. Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and as such, the appeal is dismissed. However, all the participants are held entitled to be considered afresh even if they have crossed maximum age limit prescribed under the policy, keeping in view the fact that the appellant was in employment for the last about 14 years and they were fighting the litigation for all these long years. 9 2026:HHC:18154 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (G.S. Sandhawalia ) Judge Chief Justice 15 th May, 2026 (ankit)