IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 4528 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.10.2010 Smt. Naresh Kumari …... Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and ors. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner challenges the appointment of 3rd respondent as Dai. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent does not possess the requisite qualification. What is the qualification for appointment to the post of Dai is not quite clear from the pleadings either of the petitioner or respondents. Be that as it may, it is stated in the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:- “ In reply this para, it is very humbly submitted that the candidature of the applicant was considered for the selection to the 2 post of Dais together with all similar situated persons. But as a matter of fact, her selection was subject to her performance in the interview, competing with other similarly situated candidates and coming out successfully and meritoriously in the merit-list of such interview, irrespective of the fact that she already possessed the requisite educational and professional training. The selection of the applicant and the similarly situated persons was also subject to the number of sanctioned posts of Dais. Since Respondent No.3, Smt. Nimo Devi, who also possessed the requisite educational and professional qualifications, had successfully competed in the said interview, her selection as Dai as such was made in a right perspective under the existing recruitment rules and, therefore, as the applicant did not compete successfully in the interview, she could not be selected. Hence, the action of the Replying-Respondents is legal, within rules of recruitment & promotions and justified and the same may be upheld as valid. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the application of the applicant, which is a product of mis-apprehensions, is not maintainable in the present form and as such the same deserves to be dismissed.” 2. Even if 3rd respondent is ousted, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner will be the rightful claimant in the selection process. Be that as it may, in case the petitioner has a case that in terms of R&P Rules for recruitment of trained Dai at the relevant time 3rd respondent is not duly qualified, it will be open to her to point out the same before 2nd respondent. In the event of petitioner approaching 2nd respondent, the matter will be examined by 2nd respondent, if the petitioner is next candidate to be considered. By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that 2nd respondent shall consider the matter only, if in the process the petitioner will be the next 3 candidate to be considered in the event of 3rd respondent being ousted. Needful action, as above, will be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation by the petitioner, provided that the petitioner files the representation within a period of one month. It is also made clear that the action, as above, will be taken only with notice to the parties. 4. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. October 20, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh) (sks/pankaj) Judge.