IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 203/2008 Reserved on: 9.3.2010 Decided on:16.3. 2010 _____________________________________________ Ashok Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge Petitioner appeared in the interview for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher under the Himachal Pradesh Primary Assistant Teacher Scheme, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the scheme’ for brevity sake). He was selected. Appointment letter was issued to him on 7.9.2007. However, respondent No.4 did not permit petitioner to join his duties. He made representations to the Pradhan vide Annexures A-2 and A-3. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . yes. 2 Mr. Vikas Rajput has vehemently argued that the action of respondent No.4 of not permitting his client to join his duties pursuant to appointment letter dated 7.9.2007 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjustified and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Onkar Jairath have strenuously argued that respondent No.4 was not associated during the course of interview held on 29.6.2007, which has vitiated the entire selection process. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings carefully. The Selection Committee, as per scheme, comprises of the following members: i) SDO of the concerned Sub-Division – Chairman ii) Pradhan, Gram Panchyat Concerned - Member iii) Central Head Teacher of concerned Centre – Member iv) Block Primary Education Officer - Secretary Respondent No.4 was informed by respondent No.3 on 6.6.2007about the interview. He was nominated to be the Member of the Selection Committee. Interview was fixed on 29.6.2007. It is evident from the pleadings that respondent No.4 though informed was not present at the time of interview. Mr. Vikas Rajput has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-5 dated 2.10.2007 issued by respondent No.4. A bare perusal of this document reveals that respondent No.4 was late by 30 minutes and as per his own version, the interview was not held in his presence. Once the Selection Committee had been constituted, all the members were 3 required to be associated and present at the time of interview. In case respondent No.4 could not make himself available at the time of interview, the same should have been postponed. The Court is of the concerned view that non-participation of respondent No.4 at the time of interview has vitiated the entire selection process. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 16.3. 2010 *awasthi*