IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP-T No. 3088 of 2008 Decided on : 22.03.2011 Ms Chura Mani ..… Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K.Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii):- “(i) That the present Original application may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to select the applicant to the post of Supervisor Class-III. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to convey the marks obtained in the written test, interview and final result prepared by the respondents.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6(iii) to (iv):- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “In reply to these paras it is submitted that applicant applied for the post of Supervisor. The written test for the said post w as conducted on 19-1-2003 and result of the written test was declared on 8-5-2005 in which applicant had succeeded and called for the personal interview vide Annexure A-8 of the O.A. The result of the personal interview was declared on 30-8-2005 in which the applicant did not fall in merit and all selected candidates have been issued appointment letters, who have joined their duties. 48 post were reserved for OBC category. The applicant has mentioned these paras that she has applied for the category of OBC is wrong and baseless. In fact, the applicant has applied for the General Category. The applicant secured 50 marks whereas merit ended at 67.7 marks. Thus, it is clear that the applicant was far away from the merit. Hence, allegation levelled by the applicant mentioned in this O.A. are wrong and baseless as she did not fall in the merit. It is further submitted here that all 238 posts of Supervisors in the department stand filled-up now.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, she shall be free to make a representation along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.2/competent authority within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next three months in accordance with law, after affording an 3 opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/her authorized representative, if so desired. 4. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 22nd March, 2011. Lsp*