IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8503 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Ms. Neelam Kumari. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Himmat Negi and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Other respondents ex parte. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i), (ii) and (iii): “7(i) That the letter of selection of respondent No. 4 as made by respondents No. 1 to 3 may very kindly be called for and the same may very kindly be quashed and set aside with further directions to the respondents to make selection as per Annexure A-3. (ii) That condition No. VI in the letter is ultra vires, hence is liable to be struck down. (iii) That respondents may very kindly be directed not to make fresh selection and allow the applicant serving as earlier her services having been engaged on the basis of the proper interview also for the purpose.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 2. In reply, on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, the following stand has been taken in preliminary submissions vide paras 1 and 2: “1. That in the respondent State earlier the recruitment in the category of tailoring teachers were made as per provisions of R&P Rules which cadre now stood as dying cadre. The automatic consequence of the said decision is that now no fresh recruitment in the said category of tailoring teacher is being made in the respondent department. In its place the respondent State/Deptt. Launched a scheme of vocational/tailoring centres for Gram Panchayats in H.P. in August 1998, which now stands suspended by the govt. of H.P. vide notification No. PCH-HC(10)3/96-23456611 date 04.10.200, wherein it has been envisaged that the appointment of tailoring teachers in Gram Panchayats shall be made on contract basis of one year by selection committee consisting of concerned Panchayat through transparent procedure. The said posts of tailoring teachers according to the said scheme is purely on contract basis and is governed by Section 135 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. As per the notification/scheme of appointment there is no automatic renewal of contract after the expiry of its term of one year. The candidate who is working under contract has to appear for re-interview, which shall base on merits of selection so conducted by selection committee of concerned Panchayat. The replying respondent further submits that it is clearly mentioned in the notification dated 04.10.2000 that preference shall be given to the candidate who tops in merit and whose no member is in employment either govt. or semi govt. and no automatic renewal or extension will be given to the candidate who has already worked with the respondent department on contract basis. Each year selection will be made on the basis of merit and the one who tops the merit will be selected. Thus, n o illegal or arbitrariness has been committed by the replying respondents as the applicant's husband is in army whereas the respondent No. 4 Smt. Savita's husband/family members is not in Govt. service. Hence, keeping in view the provisions of eligibility criteria as mentioned in notification by the selection committee which selection is as per merit against which is no cause of action ever accrues to the applicant the present petition is not maintainable. 2. That the applicant was earlier selected and appointed remained engaged w.e.f. 1999 to 2001. The applicant has served her period of contract i.e. for a year and thus no arbitrariness or illegality as well as discrimination has been committed by the replying respondents and as such no cause of action has accrued against ht applicant. Accordingly, as and when new selection be made the applicant can also appear in test and compete with others as per guidelines. Hence, the present O.A. is not maintainable on this ground also.” ...3... 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, she may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before the first respondent/competent authority within a period of one month from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the said respondent/competent authority shall decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the private respondent No. 4, if so desired. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th December, 2010 (virender)