IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12636 of 2008 Decided on : 16.08.2011 ________________________________________________ Smt. Pitambari Devi … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another … Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : None, though served. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G., with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (a) and (b):- “(a). The result of the interview held on 31.05.2005 may kindly be stayed till the selection of the applicant; (b) In case the result has been declared the appointments be held & applicant be ordered to have been selected for the post of supervisor.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. In reply, the following stand has been taken on behalf of the respondents vide para 6(iv) & (v):- “In reply to these paras it is submitted that applicant applied for the post of Supervisor. The written test for the said post was conducted on 19-1-2003 and result of the written test was declared on 8-5-2005 in which applicant had succeeded and called for the personal interview vide Annexure P-6 of the O.A. The result of the personal interview was declared on 30-8-2005 in which the applicant did not fall in merit and all selected candidates have been issued appointment letters, who have joined their duties. The applicant has applied for the General Category and secured 64 marks whereas merit ended at 67 marks. Thus, it is clear that the applicant was far away from the merit. Hence, allegation leveled by the applicant mentioned in this O.A. are wrong and baseless as she did not fall in the merit. It is further submitted here that all 238 posts of Supervisors in the department stand filled- up now. Only 4 posts of Supervisors meant for ward of freedom fighter could not be filled up due to non availability of candidates.” 4. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, she shall be free to make a representation supported by 3 documents along with copy of this judgment to the respondents/competent authority within one month from today and the said respondent shall consider the same and take final decision within further two months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. August 16, 2011. (Lsp)