IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 2134 of 2008. Date of Decision : 9.5.2011. Meeran Devi …..Petitioner. Versus. State of H. P and others. 1 ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No. 1 & 2. Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The primary ground urged by the petitioner for challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 is that the petitioner is more meritorious then respondent No.3, Prakash Chand. It is undisputed before me that CWP No. 181 of 2005, titled Prakash Chand versus State of H. P. and others was instituted in this Court with respect to the same selection of volunteer teachers. In that petition, the comparative merit of the candidates included the parties hereto was placed on record of the case. 1 Whether the reporters of the Local papers are allowed to the judgment? Yes. 2 3. Both, the petitioner herein and respondent Prakash Chand respondent herein were parties in that petition. The merit list was placed on the record. Prakash Chand was granted 58.50 marks in the criteria adopted for selection and petitioner Meeran Devi was awarded 56.10 marks. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner herein is more meritorious then respondent No.3, as alleged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this marking is not fair. This submission made on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be gone into as there are no malafides alleged against the Selection committee. This Court cannot adopt the criteria suggested by the petitioner herein and convert itself into a selection committee. 5. There is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. (Justice Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. 9th May, 2011, (jai)