IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 5274/2008 Decided on:23.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Reena Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioners : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. Yash W. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.6. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Dimti was kept reserved for reserve category. Ten candidates, including petitioner and respondent No.5, applied for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. Interview was held on 24.3.2006. The Selection Committee was presided over by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Poanta Sahib. Petitioner secured 56.38 marks and respondent No.5 secured 57.88 marks. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Respondent No.6 has issued appointment letter dated 5.6.2006. However, respondent No.5 could not join his duties as interim order was passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Mr. Bimal Gupta has strenuously argued that respondent No.5 has obtained the employment by concealing facts from the respondent-State. According to him, his father Shri Rati Ram was working as Beldar in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. Mr. Dilip Sharma has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexures R-5/2 and R-5/3 to substantiate that respondent No.5 has separated from his family from 10.10.2001. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-5/6 to establish that his client had obtained separate ration card in the year 2002-2003. Annexures R-5/2 and R-5/3 have been issued by the competent Authority. There is no reason to disbelieve these documents. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure R-5/2 and R/5-3, it was always open to her to approach appropriate authority. Petitioner has not chosen to do so till date. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, respondent No.5 has proved that he has separated from his father on 10.10.2001. Respondent No.5 is more meritorious vis-à-vis petitioner, as noticed hereinabove. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.6.2010 *awasthi*