IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6917 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 23, 2010 Veena Devi Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) It is the petitioner’s grievance that while making appointments to the post of Vidya Upasak her claim was wrongly ignored. 2. In response respondent No. 3 has categorically stated as under:- “3. It is submitted that the applicant having Roll No. 70706 had applied for the post of Vidya Upasak in Gohar Sub Division of Mandi District under general (IRDP) category and that is why her result of written screening test held on Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 10.10.1999 was declared in IRDP sub category of main general category as would be seen from the press note at Annexure “A”/2. Since her overall performance in the written screening test as well as personal interview was not upto the mark, so she could not find place in the list of selected candidates. The contention of the applicant that because she had not been considered under the category of general (UR) so grave miscarriage of justice has been caused to her is based on conjectures and is far from truth. At the time of compilation of the result it was ensured that no candidate belonging to IRDP sub category who had got more marks in the written plus viva-voce than the last selected candidate of his main (UR) category was overlooked. Therefore, if the applicant had secured more marks in the overall performance than the last selected candidate of her main UR sub category, she would have definitely found place in the selection list. The position being so it is wrong on the part of the applicant to say that grave injustice has been done to her. It is however, further submitted that after selection the recommendation for the posts of Vidya Upasaks in Gohar sub division was sent to the requisitioning authority on 30.3.2000 (Annexure –R/1) and the record excluding interview sheets, proceedings of the Interview Board and result of the written screening test was weeded-out after it has been retained for the prescribed life as per the rules of Business of the replying Board because by that time no intimation as to the filing of this Original Application by 3 the applicant had been received. In fact if the copy of the Original Application now received from Ld. Addl. Advocate General, HP, Shimla vide his letter No. O.A. No. 3137/2000-2203 is gone through it will be seen that the replying Board was not made a party at all. So under these circumstances being totally unaware of the O.A. having been filed before this Hon’ble Tribunal by the applicant during the year 2000, the record pertaining to the selection of Vidya Upasaks in Gohar sub-division which was not required for any enquiry, case etc, was weeded-out as provided in the Rules of Business and procedure of this Board. However, in the light of position emerging from the perusal of result of written screening test and proceedings of the selection committee including interview sheets of viva- voce, the O.A. may kindly be dismissed.” 3. This fact has not been controverted by filing a rejoinder. 4. That apart the respondents have clarified that all eligible applicants were considered and selections were made on the basis of merit alone. It was ensured that claim of no candidate belonging to IRDP sub-category who had got more marks in the written plus viva-voce than the last selected candidate of the main category was ignored. 5. Now admittedly petitioner had applied for general category. It cannot be her case that IRDP is a different category. IRDP is a sub- 4 category of general category. Claims of all eligible candidates have been considered and selections made on merits. 6. Even otherwise scheme of Vidya Upasaks has now been done away by the respondents. The persons who were appointed, pursuant to the selection made by respondent No. 3 have also not been arrayed as party to the instant petition. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons it cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated or that interference is warranted. Petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 23, 2010 (PK)