CWP(T) No. 6890 of 2008 6.12.2010 Present: Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G., for the respondents. From the supplementary affidavit, filed by the respondents- State, it is quite apparent that respondents-State has not discriminated the petitioner in not giving appointment to her as ‘Dai’. It is apparent that Kamla Devi, Kashmiri Devi and Surinder Kaur were given appointment in accordance with the then existing Rules, which prescribed educational qualification to be 5th pass. In the case of the petitioner Rules stood amended which prescribed minimum educational qualification to be middle pass. Undisputedly, petitioner is not middle pass. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents’s action is illegal. No legally enforceable rights of the petitioner stand violated. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. December 6, 2010, (Sanjay Karol), J. (vs)