IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.12539 of 2008 Date of decision : August 4, 2011 Naresh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner and respondent No.4 were candidates for a post of Assistant Teacher, in a Government School in Dehra Tehsil of Kangra District. The guidelines or the criteria, circulated for making selection, prescribed 10 marks for those who come from unemployed families and 15 marks for the viva-voce test. Petitioner was not selected. Respondent No.4 was selected. Petitioner’s grievance is that respondent No.4 was self-employed and also his academic career was not as good as that of his (the petitioner), but still he was granted higher marks in viva-voce. Respondents have denied that respondent No.4 was self-employed. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. In the reply, filed by respondents No.1 and 2, it is stated that seven marks were awarded to the petitioner, out of 15 marks, for viva-voce, whereas respondent No.4 was awarded 12 marks. Petitioner’s marks for educational qualification are 28.37, while those of respondent No.4 24.62. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite petitioner’s score in educational standard being higher than that of respondent No.4, he has been awarded less marks in viva-voce. Also, he submits that viva-voce marks were awarded in consolidated number, instead of breaking the marks under different sub-heads, such as experience, general knowledge, etc. 5. Reply shows that the petitioner was awarded 7 marks and respondent No.4 12 marks in viva-voce, but there is nothing on record, indicating that the marks allocated for viva-voce, had not been divided into sub- heads. So, the submission is rejected. 6. As regards marks under the head “Unemployment”, both, the petitioner and respondent No.4, were awarded ten marks, each. 7. Petitioner has filed rejoinder, in which it is stated that respondent No.4 was self-employed, earning `25,000/- per month. On the other hand, respondent …3… No.4 has placed on record information, procured under the Right to Information Act, per which, the petitioner is not from a family, which has no person employed with Government. His father is shown to be in Government service, drawing basic salary of `8,375/- plus usual allowances. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 4, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J