IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11492 of 2008. Decided on: May 3, 2011. Ruchika Sharma Versus State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Parneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “i) That the appointment of Respondent No. 7 Ms. Anita as Para Teachers Lecturer in Political Science may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.” 2. In the reply at paragraphs-3 and 6 it is stated as follows: “3. That the present original application filed by the applicant before this Hon’ble Tribunal against the selection of Respondent No. 7, is not maintainable because selection of Respondent No. 7 is strictly as per the provisions of the Para Teachers Policy. It is submitted that Respondent No. 7 namely Anita being meritorious has rightly been selected as Lecturer Political Science under Para Teacher Policy by the Selection Committee. As per merit list prepared by Sub Divisional Magistrate Jawali i.e. Chairman, Selection Committee, the applicant’s name figures at Sr. No. 2 because she secured 54 marks whereas Respondent No. 7 succeeded to secure 57 marks and has been placed at Sr. No. 1, hence contention of the applicant is baseless and concocted. However extract of marks secured by the Respondent No. 7 and the applicant is annexed as Annexure R-1. In view of this position, the present original application is liable to be dismissed straightway. 6(i-viii) That the contents of this para call for no submission being a matter of record. 6(ix) That the contents of this para pertain to Respondent No. 3 hence call for no submissions. 2 6(x) That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. 6(xi) That the contents of this para are admitted to be correct being a matter of record. 6(xii) That in reply to this para it is submitted that Sr. No. 3 of office order dated 16.2.2004, was kept vacant due to the reasons that one Sh. Anil Kumar S/O Sh. Krishan Lal also appeared in the interview who was a retrenched (Contract Employee) and it was to be decided whether person shown at Sr. No. 1 i.e. Respondent No. 7 has to be offered appointment or a retrenched (Contract Employee) has to be appointed straightway. Accordingly as per the provision of the policy, Sh. Anil Kumar was offered appointment as Lecturer, Political Science under Para Teacher Policy vide office order No. EDN-STN(E-4) Para Teacher/2004/911-18 dated 16-02-2004 copy annexed as Annexure R-2. But he informed the Principal GSSS Sathana i.e. Respondent No. 4 that he has already joined as Lecturer Pol. Science in GSSS Ghar Jarot on 12-2-2004 (FN) therefore, appointment has been offered to Anita Respondent No. 7 whose name was at Sr. No. 1 in the merit list. 6(xiii) That the contention of the applicant is absolutely baseless, hence cannot be admitted. 6(xiv) That the contents of this para pertain to Respondent No. 3, hence call for no submissions. 6(xv) That the contents of this para are wrong in view of the facts and submissions as submitted in the preceding paras. 6(xvi) That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. However, it is submitted that selection of the respondent No. 7 is strictly as per the Para Teachers Policy. 6(xvii) That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied in view of the facts and submissions as submitted in the preceding paras.” 3. There is no rejoinder. In view of the factual position as above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 3rd May, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (vs) Judge.