IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.14726 of 2008 Decided on: August 26, 2011 Dev Kumar ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for the respondents. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner alongwith respondent No.6 applied for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Govt. Primary School, Balahani of Tehsil Karsog. Respondent No.6 was selected and appointed. Petitioner is aggrieved by the selection and appointment of respondent No.6. Her plea is that the said respondent did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as Primary Assistant Teacher, inasmuch as she did not possess the certificate of non- employment on the last date, fixed for submission of applications and that such certificate was issued in her favour by Executive Magistrate, Karsog, only on 15.1.2007 Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É and she produced it only at the time of interview on 17.1.2007. 2. Respondent 6 has not put in appearance despite service. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a common reply, in which it is stated that certificate of non-employment was produced by respondent No.6 at the time of her interview on 17.1.2007 and was not submitted with the application. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General. 4. Only submission that has been made on behalf of the petitioner is that certificate of non-employment, having been issued in favour of respondent No.6 after the last date for submission of applications, could not have been taken into account. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar Misra, AIR 2003 SC 441. 5. What has been held in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that a candidate should possess the requisite qualification on the last date, fixed for submission of applications, and not that the certificate of such qualification should also be submitted alongwith the application or it should be issued before the last date for submission of applications. 6. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.6 did not fulfill the condition of non- É3É employment on the last date of making the application. Mere fact that the certificate was obtained by respondent No.6 subsequently and produced at the time of interview would thus make no difference. 7. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. August 26, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.