IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 14397 of 2008 Decided on : 20.09.2011 ________________________________________________ Chaman Lal … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer vide para 7 (a) to (c):- “a) That the selection of the respondent No.4 may be set-aside being illegal and unjustified. b) That the respondent may be directed to produce the original record of the interview in the honorable court. c) That respondent may also be directed to appoint the petitioner as PAT in Primary School Sarnota.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand vide para 3:- “That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable, because as per the information as well as the proforma of marks supplied respondent No.2 i.e Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Mandi, the post of Primary Assistant Teacher for Govt. Primary School, Sarnota, Gram Panchayat Jamni Distt. Mandi was reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate and the interview was held under the Chairmanship of Sub-Divisional Officer (C) Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi and during the course of interview the selection committee has awarded 45.50 marks to the respondent No.4 Sh. Bhikham Ram and 43.90 marks to the applicant. The abstract of marks is reproduced as under:- “Applicant:- +2 marks (actual %age) B.A PG Profe- ssional Training Widow/ Destitute women Unem- ployment Personal interview Total Remark 25.90 - - - - 10 8 43.90 II Respondent No.4. +2 marks (actual %age) B.A PG Profe- ssional Training Widow/ Destitute women Unem- ployment Personal interview Total Remark 25.50 - - - - 10 12 45.50 I Therefore, the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable. 3 Hence, the present original application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.” 3. Respondent No.3 has contested the petition on legal objections regarding maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that respondent No.4 was appointed on the basis of selection conducted by the committee headed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarkaghat. 4. Respondent No.4 has not filed any reply. 5. In view of the above replies, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he may make a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.2/competent authority within one month from today, who shall consider and decide the same within next two months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. September 20, 2011. (Lsp) 4