IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1289 of 2007. Decided on: 23rd November, 2010. Babita Kumari. …. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: (I) That this writ petition may be allowed and respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner as lecturer and appointment of respondent No.6 made during pendency of OA be quashed and set aside and respondents may be further directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of lecturer with all the consequential benefits. (II) That the petitioner may be allowed time to complete her qualification if any.” 2. In the Preliminary Objections of the reply at paras 1 to 4, it is stated as follows: “1. That the present Writ Petition is not maintainable in the present form in so much so no cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner as 2 she is not eligible for the post of school lecturer under PTA Scheme. 2. That the essential qualification for the appointment to the post of school lecturer is Masters Degree with B.Ed. whereas the applicant does not possess B.Ed degree. Respondent No.6 has been engaged as lecturer in History as she possesses MA (History) as well as B.Ed degrees. Moreover, respondent No.6 topped the merit list and accordingly appointment letter dated 11.9.2006 annexed as Annexure R5/1 along with its English translation as Annexure R5/1/T was issued in her favour. 3. That the petitioner cannot claim the said post as a matter of right since the selected candidate is more qualified and suitable candidate. 4. That the petitioner neither applied nor appeared for the interview conducted for the post of lecturer in History therefore she has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. On this sole ground the present writ petition is bound to be dismissed.” 3. In view of the reply, as extracted above, the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. 23rd November, 2010. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge. 3