IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4454 of 2010. Decided on: 22nd October, 2010. Meera Thakur. .….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. …. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(1) For issuing a writ of Certiorari for quashing appointment of respondent No.3 as Instructor in Cutting and Tailoring pursuant to selection process undertaken vide Annexure P-2. (2) For issuing a writ of Mandamus for appointing the petitioner as Instructor in Cutting and Tailoring pursuant to the selection process undertaken vide Annexure P-2. (3) For quashing Annexure P-8 wherein another vacant post of Instructor in Cutting and Tailoring has been advertised afresh and for directing the respondents to fill up the vacant post of Instructor in Cutting and Tailoring from the panel prepared out of selection process undertaken pursuant to Annexure P- 2.” 2. In the preliminary submission of the reply at paras 2 and 3, it is stated as follows: 2 “2. It is also submitted that there is no such criteria fixed in the department of replying respondent to fill up the posts/Instructor cutting and tailoring on batchwise i.e. seniority wise basis (Copy of the R&P Rules is enclosed as Annexure R-1) and respondent No.3 stood first and petitioner stood second in the panel prepared by the selection committee consisting of five members on the basis of academic, professional qualification and performance during interview (Copy of the panel is enclosed as Annexure P-5) and accordingly the Replying Respondent offered the appointment to the Respondent No.3. 3. It is submitted that in the Recruitment process instituted after the publishing of advertisement in the leading newspaper on dated 29.11.2009 (Attached as Annexure P-2) and was accomplished on dated 21.5.2010 and respondent No.3 was selected. However, inadvertently next advertisement attached as P-8 with the Petition was issued despite the subsisting panel. Scrutiny of the record depicts that the vacancy is available and the panel still exists and the appointment to the post can be offered to the petitioner and the Department as per the finding of the selection committee shall take steps accordingly.” 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take further steps in terms of the reply, as above, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 22nd October, 2010 (Justice V.K. Sharma), (tr) Judge. 3