IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 12311 of 2008. Decided on 23.02.2011. _____________________________________________________ Nishi Devi. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. None for respondents No. 4 to 16. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Tikkar Buhla, Tehsil Bhoraj, District Hamiapur, H.P. Respondents have advertised 242 posts of Supervisors on 22.10.2002. Petitioner has also submitted an application for considering her candidature. The written test for the post was conducted on 19.01.2003. The result was declared on 08.05.2005. Since the petitioner has qualified the written test, she was called for interview on 07.06.2005. Petitioner has secured 66 marks, whereas the last candidate in the merit list has secured 67 marks. According to the criteria adopted by the respondents, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 100 marks were provided for written test and 12.5 marks for personal interview. The merit list was drawn on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test as well as in the interview. 2. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was more meritorious vis-à-vis the candidates, who have been considered for the post of Supervisor. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the criteria adopted by the respondents is just and fair. According to him, the petitioner being low in the merit list, could not be appointed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. It is true that the petitioner had qualified the written test and was called for interview on 07.06.2005. Respondents have provided 100 marks for written test and 12.5 marks for the interview. Petitioner has secured 66 marks, whereas the last candidate in the merit list has secured 67 marks. Since the suitability of the petitioner vis-à-vis the selected candidates has been gone into by a duly constituted Selection Committee, this Court will not sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the same. The criteria adopted by the respondents of prescribing 100 marks for written test and 12.5 marks for interview is in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge February 23, 2011. (bhupender)