IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5420 of 2010 Decided on: 23.11.2010 Smt. Kalpana Devi …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “(a) That the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as JBT on regular basis as has been done in the entire batch of 174 candidates of the petitioner. (b) That the policy decision of the State Government applicable in so as it discriminates the petitioner by offering her appointment on contract basis vis a vis the regular JBT appointees particularly belonging to the batch of the petitioner be quashed and set aside.” 2 2. At Paras - 3, 4 and 6 of the reply, it is stated as follows:- “ 3 & 4. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 required list of JBT passed from RTTI, Kullu and St. Bede’s, Shimla only. There was no mention of RTTI, Kullu in the registration index card of petitioner which was filled by the petitioner herself at the time of registration, as has been admitted by herself in the para 6 of this petition too. Consequently her name was not included in the list sent on 27.3.2006 to respondent No. 3. But her name was sent by the replying respondent in list of left out registrants at serial No.1 sent vide letter No. 1563 dated 15-9-2007 (annexure R-5), to respondent No. 3. 6. The contents of this para are admitted being a matter of record. However, when the matter came to the knowledge of replying respondent the remedial sources were applied and lastly the name of the petitioner was sent to respondent No. 3 vide R-5. Hence it is crystal clear that no cause of action accrues against the replying respondent in this petition, so the same may kindly be dismissed qua replying respondent or the replying respondent may kindly be discharged as the necessary party/respondent.” 3. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action in the light of the recommendations made by the Employment Officer without discriminating the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a 3 copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and the reply filed by the Employment Officer. 3. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja ), November 23, 2010 Judge (SDS/BSS)