IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 14385 of 2008 Decided on: August 5, 2011 Pushpa Thakur ..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. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner and respondent No.3 (Smt. Shakuntala Devi), alongwith some other persons, were candidates for the post of Assistant Primary Teacher, interviews for which were conducted on 29.4.2006. Respondent No.3 was selected while petitioner was placed at No.2 in the order of merit. There being only one vacancy, respondent No.3 was appointed. Petitioner is aggrieved by her (respondent No.3’s) appointment. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that she was better qualified than respondent No.3 and also she has not been Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É awarded any marks for her belonging to a family, in which nobody was employed. Further, her case is that she was awarded only 8 marks in viva-voce test, while respondent No.3, who was less qualified than her (the petitioner), has been awarded 14 marks. Also, it is alleged that the petitioner, on account of her possessing special qualification in education, because of her being Bachelor in Education (B. Ed), was required to be preferred, as per selection procedure, Annexure PF. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have countered all the allegations of the petitioner, except that the petitioner was better qualified and possessed B. Ed. degree. They have denied that nobody was employed in the family of the petitioner and, hence, he was entitled to 10 marks on this score. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. First submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that maximum marks allocated for viva- voce test were 10, but respondent No.3 was awarded 14 marks. That is not correct. Change in the guidelines for selection and allocation of marks, under various sub-heads, took place in May, 2005, i.e. much before the selection process started for the post, and the interview marks were É3É raised from 10 to 15. The fact is borne out from the record that was produced by respondents No. 1 and 2. 6. Next submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been awarded only 8 marks in viva-voce test, while respondent No.3, who is just plus two pass, has been awarded 14 marks. Award of marks for viva-voce by the members of the selection committee does not depend upon the educational qualification of a candidate. It depends upon various factors like personality, answers to the questions asked of the candidates, approach of the candidates etc. etc. Therefore, submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner, on account of her possessing higher qualification than respondent No.3, ought to have been awarded higher marks, is unacceptable. 7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was required to be preferred over respondent No.3, on account of her possessing special qualification in the field of education, because she possessed bachelor degree in education. Annexure PF provides for preference to a candidate possessing professional degree in the field of education. Provision regarding preference to a candidate comes into play, when the merit of candidates is equal. In the present case, merit of respondent No.3 was assessed higher than É4É that of the petitioner. It may not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner was given 5 out of 5 marks for her possessing bachelor degree in education and this was in addition to 10 marks awarded for her possessing bachelor’s degree in science. 8. In view of the above stated position, I see no merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. August 5, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.