IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. NO. 848 of 2006 Reserved on : 8.5.2008 Decided on: 16.5.2008. Shalu Malwal ..Petitioner. Versus D.A.V. Management Committee & Others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. RAJIV SHARMA, J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in sequel to advertisement issued by the respondent No.1 Management on 18.4.2005, the petitioner submitted an application for being considered for the post of Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry on contract basis. The Selection Committee met on 22.4.2005. She was offered appointment as Lecturer on contract basis on a consolidated salary. She joined her duties on 3.10.2005. She alongwith other lecturers appointed on contract basis were relieved on 31.3.2006. However, due to exigency, she was re-engaged on 17.4.2006 and was again relieved on 7.7.2006. The Management issued fresh advertisement which appeared in the daily edition of ‘ The Tribune’ on 23.8.2006 whereby the applications were called for the post of Lecturer on contract basis in the subject of Chemistry as well. The petitioner submitted application for being 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? - 2 - considered by the respondent for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry. The Selection Committee met on 27.8.2006. She was placed at serial No.2 in the panel. However, Shri Munish Bharwal, respondent No.3 was at serial No.1 and was offered appointment letter. Mr. Onkar Jairath, had strenuously argued that once the petitioner has been appointed on contract basis on 3.10.2005, she could not be replaced by Shri Munish Bharwal. In other words, her submission is that she could not be replaced by another contract employee. Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 had strenuously argued that the petitioner had appeared in the interview held on 27.8.2006, but the petitioner was placed at serial No.2 in the panel prepared by the Selection Committee and thus she cannot seek fresh appointment. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records carefully. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry on contract basis on consolidated salary on 3.10.2005. She was relieved on 31.3.2006, however, re-engaged on 17.4.2006 and relieved on 7.7.2006. It is evident from the advertisement which appeared in the daily edition of ‘The Tribune’ August 23, 2006 that fresh applications were called from the candidates for the post of Lecturer on contract basis including in the subject of Chemistry. The petitioner had also submitted application and was placed at serial No.2 in the panel drawn by the Selection Committee on 27.8.2006. The respondent No.3 was placed at serial No.1 in the panel drawn by the Selection Committee and was offered appointment letter as Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry on contract basis. The contention of Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate that - 3 - respondent No.3 could not replace her is untenable. She had appeared in the interview conducted by the Management and it is only when she has not been found suitable, she had approached this Court. The petitioner ought to have challenged the advertisement issued on 23.8.2006 instead of taking a chance by appearing before the Selection Committee. She cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate had argued that her client had brought it to the notice of the Management that there is no need for fresh interview as she has already been working as Lecturer on contract basis, but nothing in writing has been placed by the petitioner on record to substantiate this plea. The petitioner once had appeared in the interview and placed lower in merit cannot have any legitimate grievance against the selection of respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has been found more meritorious by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 27.8.2006. The decision of the respondents to offer appointment to the respondent No.3 as Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry, is in accordance with law. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. 16.5.2008.(GR).