IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 8801 of 2008. Decided on 9th March, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Savita Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 3,7,9,25, 28 and 31. Mr. Yoginder Paul, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 2 has notified 79 posts of T.G.T. (Arts). Petitioner has also submitted application for considering his candidature. She qualified the written test and thereafter, she was called for interview. Interviews were held between 16.05.2002 to 17.05.2002 and 20.5.2002 to 24.5.2002. However, the name of the petitioner was not recommended by respondent No. 2 for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (Arts). 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 2. Ms. Ambika Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that since her client has secured more marks in the written test vis-à-vis the selected candidates, her name should have been recommended by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 for appointment to the post in question. She also contended that there was tampering in the marks. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Tarlok Jamwal and Mr. Yoginder Paul, Advocates have supported the appointment of selected candidates to the posts of T.G.T.(Arts). 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner has qualified the written test. 200 marks were provided for written examination and 30 marks were carved out for qualifying this examination. The suitability of the candidates was to be adjudged on the basis of over all performance in the written test as well as in the interview. 30 marks for interview cannot be held to be disproportionate to written test of 200 marks. There is no merit in the contention of Ms. Ambika Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner that since her client has secured more marks in the written test, she should have been recommended for appointment to the post of T.G.T.(Arts). The suitability of the petitioner and similarly situate persons has been adjudged on the basis of the merit of screening test, academic record, knowledge about the subject, awareness of the duties of Trained Graduate Teachers, analysis of potential and performance in the personal interview and G.K. about Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner has not alleged any malafides against the members of the Selection Committee. Since the - 3 - suitability of the petitioner has been adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee, this Court will not sit in appeal over the recommendations of the same. Petitioner also could not substantiate that there was tampering in the marks. It is settled law by now that the marks of written test and interview can be taken up together for adjudging the suitability of the candidates. The written test is prescribed to see the academic performance of the candidate and the interview is held to see the aptitude and personality of the candidate. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 09, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `