IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4611/2008 Decided on:22.10.2010 _____________________________________________ Nirmala Devi. …Petitioner. Versus The Secretary (Education) and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Suneel Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1,2 and 4. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Craft Teacher. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that respondent No.5 was not in possession of validly issued I.R.D.P. certificate. Case of the respondents, precisely, is that in response to notification dated 16.3.1995, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 814 candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges/Sub-Employment Exchanges of Mandi District. Out of these 814 candidates, only 628 candidates appeared in the test. Out of these 628 candidates, only 36 candidates alongwith petitioner were declared successful and were called for interviews which were held between 1.8.1996 to 7.8.1996. In this case, screening test was held on 24.3.1996. Petitioner has placed on record I.R.D.P. certificate issued in the month of August, 1997. It is settled law by now that the certificates/testimonials are required to be submitted alongwith the application on or before the last date of receipt of application as per advertisement or the date prescribed under the Rules. In the case in hand, the posts of Craft Teachers were notified on 16.3.1995, screening test was held on 24.3.1996 and the interviews were held between 1.8.1996 to 7.8.1996. It can safely be presumed by this Court that the petitioner was not in possession of I.R.D.P. certificate at the time when the vacancies were notified; screening test and the interviews were held. In case the petitioner was in possession of the I.R.D.P. certificate, she ought to have placed the same on record valid upto 1995-1996. Since the petitioner herself was not eligible to be considered for the post in question under the category of I.R.D.P. (general), she 3 is precluded from challenging the eligibility of respondent No.5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 22.10.2010 *awasthi*