IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.10083 of 2008 Decided on: April 7, 2011. Inder Singh …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : None. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G., for respondents No.1 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) To declare and cancel the selection of respondent No.6 as illegal, collusive, null and void and contrary, to norms, rules and regulations for the appointment of Para Teachers. ii) To uphold the selection of the applicant and to give the applicant selection with retrospective effect alongwith full honorarium and other allowances and to burden the respondent Nos.1 to 5 with heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- for doing wrong selections and mental harassment of the applicant alongwith cost of the proceedings.” 2. In the reply, at paragraph 3, it is stated as follows: “That the present Original Application filed by the applicant is not maintainable, because the selection of the respondent No.6 Rajni Kumari as Primary Assistant Teacher has been made by the Selection Committee duly constituted for this purpose and the same has been made in accordance with the policy as framed by 2 the State of Himachal Pradesh which is clear from the copy of the profroma of marks as prepared by the Selection Committee during the course of selection. The profroma of marks as prepared by the Selection Committee shows that the Selection Committee awarded 29 marks to the applicant nad 40.5 marks to the respondent No.6 Mrs. Rajni Kumari. The copy of the proforma of marks is annexed and the same is marked as Annexure R-1. Therefore, in view of these facts, no wrong and illegal has been done by appointing the respondent No.6 Rajni Devi as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Chaloh, Education Block Raja-Ka- Talab. Hence the present Original Application filed by the applicant deserves for dismissal.” 3. There is no rejoinder. Writ petition is hence dismissed without prejudice to the liberty to the petitioner, if still aggrieved, to pursue the matter in appropriate proceedings. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice April 7, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/jai) Judge.