IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 11546 of 2008 Decided on: August 11, 2011 Anita Kumari ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5. Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate for respondent No.6. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, by means of present petition, has challenged the selection and appointment of respondents No. 4 to 6, as Para Teachers, under the Policy of 2003, copy Annexure A- 1, alleging that she being a retrenched contract teacher, was entitled to be appointed against one of the vacancies, even without being interviewed, as the advertisement itself stated that retrenched teachers were to be appointed without being interviewed. Advertisement or its copy had not been submitted with the petition, but a cutting from a newspaper, containing the Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É advertisement, has been produced in the Court. Authenticity of the advertisement is not denied by the respondents. The same, is, therefore, ordered to be taken on record. 2. Petitioner’s case is that she had served as contract teacher from June, 1997 to December, 2000 as TGT (Arts) in Government High School, Himgiri, Tehsil Tissa in District Chamba. According to her, she was retrenched, when a regular TGT was appointed in her place, in the aforesaid school. Certain posts of teachers were advertised in the year 2003, under H.P. Para Teachers (Lecturers School Cadre), Para Teachers (TGTs) and Para Teachers (C&V) Policy, 2003. Petitioner also applied for the post. Advertisement said that retrenched teachers, under contract policy, were not to be subjected to interview and were to be hired /engaged, if they applied to the concerned head of the institution and the conditions of Para Teachers Policy, 2003, were acceptable to them. Petitioner’s contention is that she, being a retrenched teacher, ought to have been appointed, in view of the aforesaid advertisement, even without being interviewed, but has not been appointment. 3. Respondents No. 4 and 5, in their reply, have stated that petitioner had served as contract teacher in Govt. High School, Himgiri of Tissa Tehsil in District Chamba, while the posts that were advertised were in a school of Chowari Tehsil of same District and as per policy, only those retrenched teachers were to be appointed without interview, who had served in a school in the same Tehsil or Sub Division, in which the vacancies were there É3É and the petitioner having served in a different Tehsil was not entitled to be appointed without being interviewed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. As per advertisement, which has been placed on record today, a retrenched candidate could be appointed without interview, only if he applied to the head of the concerned institution for such appointment. In the present case, there is nothing on record, not even a mention in the petition, that the petitioner applied to the head of the school, in which vacancies were to be filled, for appointment, on account of her being a retrenched contract teacher. Therefore, she cannot be heard to say that she was entitled to be appointed without interview, in terms of the aforesaid advertisement. 6. Above stated position apart, the policy, copy Annexure A-1, shows that the retrenched teachers were to be appointed, under the policy, without interview in schools in the same Tehsil in which they had served, before retrenchment and not in a school in different Tehsil. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. August 11, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.