IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.12517 of 2008. Decided on: 21.9.2011. Rajinder Kumar .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. None for respondents No. 5 & 7. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 6. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers, vide para 7 (i) and (ii):- (i) That the selection list prepared by the respondents No.3 to 5, selecting the respondent No.6 as Prathmic Sahayak Adhyapak in Government Primary School Bayara and keeping the respondent No.7 at No.1 in waiting list, may kindly be quashed. (ii) That the respondents No.3 to 5 may further be directed to make the selection for the post of Prathmic Sahayak Adhyapak for Government Primary School Bayara in accordance with provisions of the policy framed by the respondent State." 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 to 4 have taken the following stand, vide para 3:- “3. That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable because as per the information received from the respondent No.4, Block Primary Education Officer, Panchrukhi the selection of the respondent No.6, Kapil Panja as Primary Assistant Teacher for Govt. Primary School Bayara has been made by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 selection committee under the Chairmanship of S.D.M. Palampur in accordance with the policy as framed by the Govt. for the purpose of selection of Primary Assistant Teachers in the Education Department, which is clear from the copy of the Proforma of marks as supplied by the respondent No.4 B.P.E.O. Panchrukhi. According to the proforma of marks the selection committee on the basis of documents as well as viva-voce the applicant has secured 59.37 marks whereas the respondent No.6 has secured 59.75 marks. The proforma of marks is reproduced as under. Applicant:- +2 marks (actual %age) B.A. Certificate/Diploma in Education. PG B.Ed SC/ST/ OBC L.R. D.T. Handicapped/ Ex-Serviceman/widow Unemployment Viva Total 23.87 10 5 5 -- -- -- 10 5.50 59.37 Respondent No.6 +2 marks (actual %age) B.A. Certificate/Diploma in Education. PG B.Ed SC/ST/ OBC L.R. D.T. Handicapped/ Ex-Serviceman/widow Unemployment Viva Total 25.25 10 5 5 -- ---- --- 14.5 59.75 So in view of these facts no illegality has been committed by selecting the respondent o.6. Therefore, the present original application deserves dismissal.” 3. The stand on behalf of respondent No.6 is akin to that of respondents No 1 to 4. According to him, he has been selected by a duly constituted selection committee. 4. There is no reply on behalf of respondent No.5. 5. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, with respect to factual or legal aspects of the matter, he may make a representation along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.3/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 and respondent No.6, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma), Judge. 21st September, 2011 (Krn Guleria) 3