IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 11913 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.5.2011. Smt. Savita Devi …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral). The petitioner has assailed the communication dated 20.4.2005 Annexure A-1 with a prayer that respondents may be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner with a further prayer to order the release of salary of the petitioner for two months. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner was appointed as Cutting and Tailoring Teacher by selection board in village Churayan, Gram Panchayat Dhar Chandna, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla vide appointment letter dated 23.2.2005 Annexure A-4. The petitioner joined her duties as Cutting and Tailoring Teacher on 1.3.2005. After putting in service for almost two months, on 20.4.2005 her services were terminated by the respondents without any reason. She was not heard nor any opportunity of hearing was given to her. It has been Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… alleged that communication dated 20.4.2005 was having some reference of Original Application No. 449 of 2005, but the petitioner was not served nor she was having any knowledge of original application. In the communication dated 20.4.2005, it has been stated that Smt. Rupna Devi was appointed as Cutting and Tailoring Teacher in place of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner belongs to IRDP, no family member of the petitioner is in government employment. The applicant in the year 1999 took training for cutting and tailoring from Tailoring Institute Centre, Jublie. On these grounds, the petition was filed. 4. The respondents have filed reply and have stated that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as one Smt. Rupna Devi had filed Original Application No. 449 of 2005 challenging the appointment of Smt. Savita. The original application was ordered to be treated as representation to Director, Panchayati Raj. The Director after giving personal hearing decided the representation against the petitioner and Smt. Rupna Devi was offered appointment in place of the petitioner. Smt. Rupna Devi is a necessary party and the petition is bad for not impleading Smt. Rupna Devi. 5. It has also been stated that petitioner was intimated through letter dated 10.3.2005 regarding the date of personal hearing in O.A. No. 449 of 2005, which was fixed on 21.3.2005 in the chamber of the Director. In pursuance of said letter, the petitioner appeared before the Director on the appointed date and time. She was given personal hearing. The norms of selection were not …3… followed by the selection committee, therefore, the selection of the petitioner was quashed and Smt. Rupna Devi was ordered to be appointed. Smt. Rupna Devi had secured more marks, which was apparent from the record. 6. The respondent No. 2 after hearing both the parties had decided the representation vide office order dated 21.3.2005. It is only when selection of the petitioner was found contrary to the norms, her selection was set-aside. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken a specific stand that petitioner was served before passing the office order dated 21.3.2005. There is no reason to disbelieve the stand of respondents No. 1 to 3. No malafide has been attributed to respondents No. 1 to 3 by the petitioner. The communication dated 20.4.2005 is consequential, the basic order was passed by the respondent No. 2 on 21.3.2005, which has not been challenged by the petitioner in the petition. In the reply it has been specifically stated that proper procedure was not followed for selection of the petitioner, Smt. Rupna Devi had secured more marks, and, therefore, ultimately she was appointed in place of the petitioner. 8. In view of above, there is no merit in the petition, hence the same is dismissed. May 27, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.