IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 13612 of 2008. Decided on 23.02.2011. _____________________________________________________ Suman Lata. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Respondent No. 5 already exparte. None for respondent No. 6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that she had applied for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Bhera (Madhya), Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P.. She was interviewed alongwith other candidates, including respondent No. 6 on 20th March, 2006. Respondent No. 6 has been selected and appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher. 2. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client has not been awarded any marks under the “unemployed” category. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 3. Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 had been awarded 10 marks each under the “unemployed” category. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has secured 64.05 marks, whereas respondent No. 6 has secured 67.75 marks. Consequently, this Court will not sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. Petitioner has not alleged any malafides against the members of the Selection Committee. A bare perusal of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 reveals that the petitioner has been given ten marks under the category of “unemployed”. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge February 23, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `