IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) No.14114 of 2008 Decided on: May 26, 2011 Suman Kumari and others ..Petitioners. Versus HPSEB & others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners, numbering seven, filed an Original Application, which was registered at No.3109/2006, before erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, challenging the action of the respondents in not entertaining their applications for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher or rejecting their application on invalid grounds. Said Tribunal having been abolished in the year 2008, Original Application came to this Court and has been re-registered as CWP(T)14114/2008. 2. Prior to the filing of Original Application on 3.9.2006, petitioners had filed another Original Application Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É on 24.5.2006, which was ordered to be treated as representation by Dy. Director, Primary Education, Hamirpur, respondent No.3, herein. The said Dy. Director conducted enquiry and prepared report, copy Annexure A-3, per which the allegations of the petitioners were without substance. So, the petitioners filed the present petition, seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. One of the petitioners, namely petitioner No.1 Smt. Suman Kumari, has further stated that though her application was entertained, interview letter was delivered to her on 24.3.2006, which was the date for the interview and because of that, she could not appear for the interview. Copy of interview letter is Annexure A-1. The envelope, in which the interview letter was contained, has, however, not been placed on record. There is one photostat copy of some postal stamps at the foot of Annexure A-1, but it cannot be made out from this photostat copy that the postal stamps were affixed on the envelope, addressed to the petitioner. 4. Other petitioners have alleged that their applications were not entertained or were returned, without assigning any reason. 5. According to the petitioners, it was respondent No.5 Suresh Kumar, working as Senior Assistant, in the office of Block Education Officer, Nadaun, who did not É3É entertain the applications or returned the same, without assigning any reason. 6. Respondents, in their reply, have denied that there was any bungling. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Last date for receipt of applications was 7.2.2006. Applications were required to be presented by that date. Petitioners approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on 24.5.2006, for the first time, by filing the earlier Original Application. From 7.2.2006 to 24.5.2006 they took no steps to bring it to the notice of higher authorities that their applications had not been entertained or had been returned, without assigning any reason by respondent No.5, who was just a clerk in the office of respondent No.4. Selections were finalized on 24.3.2006. It was much thereafter that the petitioners started making the aforesaid allegations. This itself shows that the allegations may not be correct. 9. In any case, when inquiry was conducted by Deputy Director Primary Education, respondent No.3, no substance was found in the allegations of the petitioners, per report Annexure A-3. Hence, the petition is dismissed. May 26, 2011(ss) (Surjit Singh), J.