IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.7023 of 2010. Date of decision: November 23, 2011. Salochna Devi. …. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Surinder Singh, J (oral). As per the report of Registry, the petitioner has not taken steps for the service of respondent No.4. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the Inquiry Report (Annexure P9) with reference to the PTA selection of 5th respondent. The Ist respondent vide Notification No.EDN-A(Kha)7- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - 3/2006 dated 27th May, 2008 had issued the guidelines and constituted a Committee to enquire into the cases with respect to irregularly appointed teachers by PTA in the State. The Notification further provides that the Committee will hear the affected parties/ complainants after going through the record and the guidelines to be framed as contained in the said Notification. It also provides for an appeal against the recommendations of the Committee(s) to the Divisional Commissioner for colleges and for other educational institutions to the Deputy Commissioner within 30 days from the date of recommendations. 4. In the instant case, the Inquiry Committee after hearing the parties on 26.7.2010 upheld the selection of 5th respondent. The petitioner came to know about the said order on getting its copy (Annexure P-9) on 4.10.2010 under the Right to Information Act, feeling aggrieved filed the present writ petition on 8.11.2010. 5. Considering the facts in hand and the guidelines referred above, the petitioner had an alternative effective statutory remedy, without - 3 - availing whereof, she cannot be granted any relief sought. Therefore, this petition is dismissed on the ground of non-resorting to the statutory appeal. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate authority as per the guidelines alongwith an application for condoning delay pleading sufficient cause, however, the period spent in prosecuting the present writ petition i.e. w.e.f. 8.11.2010 to 23.11.2011 shall stand condoned. 6. An authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied by the Court Master of this Court to the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. November 23, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.