IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.Rev. No.144/2010 Decided on:1.6.2011 ___________________________________________________ Smt. Rajni Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). CMP (M) No. 1320/2010 Heard. In view of the grounds taken in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing the present review petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 C.Rev. No. 144 of 2011 Mr. Onkar Jairath submits that his client belongs to 2002 batch and her name stood sponsored for the post in question under the sports quota. However, in the reply filed to O.A. No.2836/2004, it has come that the name of the petitioner was sponsored during the year 2003 by respondent No.3. Mr. R.K. Sharma on the basis of the instructions imparted to him submits that the petitioner has passed her B.Com. examination in the month of April, 2001 and M.Com. examination in the month of March, 2003. The minimum eligibility criteria for filling up the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) was post-graduation. Thus, in these circumstances, petitioner cannot be treated to be belonging to 2002 batch and necessarily she belongs to 2003 batch. 2. Accordingly, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and as such the petition does not fall within the ambit of order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 1.6.2011 *awasthi*