IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10818 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.03.2011. _______________________________________________________ Nettar Singh Tomar. ….. Petitioner. Versus The 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. V.D.Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. No.1 to 4. with Mr. J.S.Rana,Asstt.A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman,Advocate. No.5. Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the experience of the petitioner as Deputy Physical Education Teacher on P.T.A. for one month has not been counted and therefore he has been placed lower in merit in comparison to the respondent No. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that petitioner has higher qualification in comparison to respondent No.5. The petitioner is M.P.Ed., whereas, respondent No.5 is B.P.Ed. But, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, he is M.A.,B.P.Ed. The result sheet has been placed on record, according to which, the petitioner has secured 62.48% marks and respondent No.5 has secured 65.37% marks and he was selected. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 experience of one month as D.P.E. cannot be considered as per criteria placed on record for selection which provides that experience of less than six months cannot be considered. The result sheet placed on record indicates that petitioner has been given marks for M.P.Ed so also respondent No.5 for his Post Graduate qualification. Thus seen from any angle, the respondent No.5 has secured more marks in comparison to the petitioner and has been placed higher in merit. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the selection of the respondent No.5 as Deputy Physical Education Teacher. The petition is dismissed. 21st March, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.