IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 14368 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.09.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Dropti Devi. .....Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. K.C. Shankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG, for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondent No. 3, though served. Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii): “7(i) That the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 Ms. Khemlata as Primary Assistant Teacher in PS Jarol Seraj-I Block may kindly be quashed and set-aside in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the applicant for selection & appointment as Primary Asstt. Teacher in P.S. Jarol as she has been kept on waiting list at No. 1.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand vide para 3: “3. That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable because as per the information received from Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Mandi that the post of Primary Assistant Teacher was sanctioned to Govt. Primary Schoo, Jarol (Saraj-I) and the same was available for General (IRDP). For this post the applicant and the respondent No. 4 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... also applied for the same. However, the selection committee selected the respondent No. 4 for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher for Govt. Primary School, Jarol by awarding 52.3 marks to the respondent No. 4 and 50 marks to the applicant, the same is clear from the copy of the proforma of marks prepared by the selection committee headed under the chairmanship of S.D.O (C) Chachoyot (Gohar) Distt. Mandi. The abstract of the proforma of marks showing this fact reproduced as under:- Applicant:- 10+2 B.A. Post Graduation Teacher Widow Destitute women Unemploy ment Total Merit Marks Personal Grs. Total. 30 - - - - 10 40 10 50 Selected 10+2 B.A. Post Graduation Teacher Widow Destitute women Unemploy ment Total Merit Marks Personal Grs. Total. 21.3 10 - - - 10 41.3 11 52.3 It is further stated that as per the information received from the Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Mandi the respondent No. 4 appeared as scheduled caste IRDP candidate whereas the post was reserved for unreserved IRDP but the respondent No. 4 did not take any benefit of having scheduled caste candidate. Hence, the contenti9on of the applicant is wrong that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 against unreserved IRDP is wrong and illegal. Therefore, the present original application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.” 3. The following averments have been set up on behalf of respondent No. 4 vide para 6(ii) and 6(v): “6(ii) This sub-para of the application is denied for want of knowledge. Infact the replying respondent is graduate (B.A) belonging to I.R.D.P family and unemployed. 6(v) This sub-para is admitted to the extent that constitution of selection committee and holding of interview in which replying respondent was selected being eligible candidate, rest of contents of this para of the application are wrong, false and incorrect, hence denied. The selection of the replying respondent is legal and valid.” ...3... 4. Rejoinder refuting the above stands on behalf of the contesting respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 5. In view of the above replies, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, she may certainly point out the same before respondents/competent authority by way of detailed representation supported by documents, if any, alongwith copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within further two months by exploring the possibility whether the petitioner can be adjusted against an existing vacancy in a nearby school, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her, if so desired. 6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 14th September, 2011 (virender) V.K. Sharma, J.