IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 391 of 2010 Decided on:21.4.2010 Mathura Devi ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents 1 to 3. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs: (i) That the respondents may be restrained from holding any interview of tailoring mistress in Danaghaton Panchayat. (ii) That the respondent-Block Development Officer may be ordered to renew the contractual period of the petitioner as tailoring mistress with immediate effect as has been done in the other cases and this court may further be pleased to direct the respondent-Block Development Officer to compensate the petitioner for his wrong action in terms of money from his own pocket. According to the petitioner, she has not been given appointment only on account of the challenge made by one Leela Devi in OA No. 2989/2001. But we find that the said petition has been withdrawn by said Leela Devi. According to the petitioner, the application was withdrawn since Leela Devi was accommodated elsewhere and the post for which the petitioner has applied, is still lying vacant. If the non-engagement of the petitioner is only account of the petition filed by Leela Devi, now that Leela Devi has withdrawn the case, the third respondent to take appropriate action for appointment of the petitioner as Tailoring Mistress at Danaghaton Panchayat. The needful in this regard shall be done by the respondents, within a month from today. The petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice April 21, 2010(sl/s) ( Justice R.B.Misra ), Judge