IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP 4080 of 2011. Decided on: August 30, 2011. Veena Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner and respondent No. 4 applied for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Ghat. Respondent No. 4 was selected. The post was reserved for sports persons from open category. Petitioner’s grievance is that she had played Kabaddi at State level and Handball at national level and, therefore, she should have been appointed, as the post was reserved for sports persons. 3. Respondent No. 4 has not appeared. Reply has been filed by respondents 1 to 3. In reply, it is stated that respondent No. 4 was also sports person, though he had participated only at district level, in the game of Kho-Kho. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - 4. It is true that post was reserved for sports persons of general category, but the advertisement did not say that it was reserved for a sports person, who played at a level, higher than the district level or that persons, who played at higher level, would be given preference. There is a criteria for selection of sports persons, copy of which has been filed by the respondents as Annexure –II to their reply. There are seven categories of sports persons, as per this Annexure. Petitioner, having participated at national level in Handball game, falls in higher category, i.e. category Nos. V and VI, while respondent No. 4 falls in VII category. Criteria does not say that candidate, falling in higher category, is to be preferred to the candidate, falling in the lower category, even if the candidate, falling in lower category, has higher merit, qualification-wise and other eligibility criteria. 5. In the present case, respondent No. 4’s merit is higher than that of the petitioner, because of his score in Plus Two Examination, being much higher than that of the petitioner. Petitioner’s score is 156/400 marks, while that of respondent No. 4 is 215/400 marks. The post is of a teacher, who has to teach all subjects to the students of primary classes. Therefore, the one, having better academic record, is more suitable. Both the candidates are Graduates and also degree holders in Education. Both of them have been awarded equal marks for Graduation and B.Ed. degrees - 3 - 6. In view of the above stated position, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall also stand dismissed. August 30, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.