IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.13571 /2008 Decided on:25.5.2011 _____________________________________________ Chander Mohan. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate for respondent No.6 _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher for Government Primary School, Urman. 2. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo has vehemently argued that the selection of respondent No.6 is contrary to the scheme framed by the respondent-State vide notification dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 27.9.2003 (Annexure A-3). He then argued that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% and respondent No.6 has only been assessed with temporary disability to the extent of 40%. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan have strenuously argued that the suitability of respondent No.6 has been adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The interview for the post in question was held on 30.8.2005, as per the scheme framed and notified on 27.9.2003. The result was declared on 7.4.2006. Respondent No.6 was found more suitable vis-à-vis petitioner. Petitioner has secured 40.3 marks and respondent No.6 has secured 41.3 marks. 6. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo has also argued that the petitioner has not been awarded 5 marks as per scheme. However, it is apparent from letter dated 17.5.2005 that respondent-State had decided not to provide any marks for IRDP/handicapped since they were getting reservation. The Court has perused the disability certificate of petitioner issued vide Annexure A-2 and respondent No.6 vide Annexure R-6/4. 3 It is no doubt true that the disability of the petitioner has been shown ‘permanent’ and that of respondent No.6 ‘temporary’, however, in the scheme what is provided is that disability provided should be more than 40% and duly certified by the Medical Board. There is no distinction between ‘permanent’ or ‘temporary’ in the scheme. However, for future reference, it is made clear that the employer must mention specifically whether the disability should be permanent or temporary for the purpose of public employment. Moreover, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage since ‘the Himachal Pradesh Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme, 2003’ is not in existence. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 25.5.2011 *awasthi*