IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12558 of 2008 Date of decision: 04.05.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Uttam Singh. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Bharti, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 not served. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(a) and (b): “7(a) That the appointment of respondent No. 4 as para teacher in Govt. Primacy Schoo, Surhandi, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra be declared illegal, arbitrary, null and void and liable to be quashed and same be quashed. (b) That the respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to appoint the applicant as para teacher in the said institution or any other institution of respondents.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the following stand on merits vide para 3: “3. That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable, because as per the information received from the Block Primacy Education Officer, Nurpur, District Kangra that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... interview for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher was conducted on 10.08.05 under the Chairmanship of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Nurpur District, Kangra. However, it is denied that the applicant was in merit as per the panel prepared by the selection committee. The copy of the Performa of marks as supplied by the Block Primacy Education Officer, Nurpur, District Kangra shows that the applicant secured 51.6 whereas the respondent No. 4 secured 53 marks. The proforma of marks is reproduced as under:- Applicant +2 marks actual % BA Certificate/di ploma in education SC/ST/O BC IRD P Handicappe d Ex- serviceman widow Unemployment Viva Total 21.6 10 5 10 51.6 51.6 Respondent +2 marks actual % BA Certificate/di ploma in education SC/ST/O BC IRD P Handicappe d Ex- serviceman widow Unemployment Viva Total 23 10 10 10 53 Therefore, in view of these facts the original application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.” 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, alongwith copy of this judgment to respondent No. 1 within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next two months by taking into consideration order dated 29th November, 2005, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3747 of 2003, Kusum Lata (Smt.) vs. State of H.P. ...3... & Others, a copy of which shall also be annexed with the representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 4th May, 2011 (virender)