IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 9951 of 2008. Decided on: 24.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Jeevan Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Meena Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.5. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. Petitioner has secured 42 marks and respondent No.5 has secured 51.5 marks. It is not denied by the respondent-State that the father of respondent No.5 was a member of the Selection Committee. However, he was asked to go out of the interview during the course of interview when his daughter’s turn came. The further case of the respondent-State is that the petitioner is at Sr. No.3 of the select list and even if the petition is allowed, she cannot be appointed. Moreover, Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - has strenuously argued that the Scheme under which the petitioner and respondent No.5 were considered is no more in vogue. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 24, 2010. (sck).