IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP.No.2470 of 2008 Reserved on 20.7.2009 Date of Decision: 27th July, 2009. _________________________________________________________ Kamla Chadha. …..Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Handicraft and others …Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner: :Mr.Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents 1&2: Mr.J.R.Thakur, Advocate. For respondent 3 : Mr.N.K.Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J: By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “(a) Writ of certiorari be issued by quashing the appointment of respondent No.3 made vide office order dated 30.9.2008 (Annexure:P/9); (b) Writ of mandamus be issued by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in place of respondent No.3 as instructor along with all consequential benefits; Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 (c) Respondents be restrained from regularizing the services of respondent No.3.” We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Respondent No.1, H.P. State Handicrafts & Handlooms Corporation Limited is a Government undertaking owned and controlled by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner had undergone her one year training course in tailoring and embroidery from “Mahila Kalyan Mandal Chamba” w.e.f. 1.9.1996 to 31.8.1997. Thereafter she completed one year training course imparted by respondent No.1 at its Branch Rang Mahal w.e.f. 1-7-1998 to 30-6-1999. The petitioner was selected and appointed as an Instructor in ‘Chamba Complex’ with respondent No.1 on contract basis with fixed remuneration of Rs. 2500/- per month which was subsequently increased to Rs.5,000/- per month. She remained posted as such w.e.f. 16.8.2001 to 10.6.2008 save and except a break during the year 2002-03 as Instructor for the training of ‘Chamba Rumal’. The Instructor and trainees are engaged on an yearly basis on contract, in the centre after giving vide publicity. The criteria for the selection of the Instructor and trainee to a particular centre are fixed by the Selection Committee itself as per the scheme sanctioned by the Government of India and also the State Government. In September, 2008 Respondent No.2 the Branch Manager on the direction of 3 respondent No.1 as usual constituted a Selection Committee comprising of Incharge Chamba Complex, Senior Assistant Accounts and Pradhan of the area/members of the Nagar Panchayat. The respondent No.2 issued a notice to the general public inviting the applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Instructor. The petitioner applied for the said post as usual along with the requisite documents. The petitioner appeared in the interview held on 27.9.2008 along with other candidates. In the Selection Committee, besides other members one Smt. Sunita Devi was included an expert member who according to the petitioner was her batch mate, having lesser experience than her. Earlier said Smt. Sunita Devi was alleged to have appeared for the said post on 29.9.2004 along with the petitioner. But the petitioner got selected when Smt. Sunita Devi was in the waiting list. In the interview held on 27.9.2008 respondent No.3-Smt.Chanchal Devi was declared as a selected candidate and was given appointment on and w.e.f. 30.9.2008 for the period of one year. Petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 was her student and she completed her training in the year 2006-07 whereas the petitioner was having vast experience in the field and had trained many students w.e.f. 2001 till date. The detailed marks awarded by the Committee were sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information 4 Act. The marks awarded by the Committee with respect to these candidates are given below : Sr.No . Name of the candidate Qualification & Marks=05 Sketching & tracing marks-20 Experience Marks-05 Viva Marks- 10 Total Marks- 40 1. Smt.Chanchal Devi. Matric 4 16 2 7 29 2. Smt.Kamla Chadha Matric 3 5 4 4 16 It is also the case of the petitioner that deliberately she was given less marks and the notes appended in the remarks columns that she had produced unattested copies of documents and that there was a complaint dated 10.3.2007 by the previous Manager, both these allegations were incorrect. Thus sought quashment of the appointment of respondent No.3. Respondents controverted the above allegations and pleaded that the petitioner on earlier occasions was selected by a similar process by a similarly constituted Committee, therefore, she cannot agitate this process when she failed to get merit and that the notes appended in the remarks column had nothing to do with the merit. In whole the selection was fair. One of the main grievances of the petitioner is that the respondents did not select her on the ground that she had not produced ten good quality ‘Chamba Rumals’ as is apparent from the remarks column made by the Selection Committee. On the perusal of the complaint dated 10th March, 2008, we find that the petitioner was asked verbally to 5 produce 15 Rumals of good quality but she produced only 10 Rumals and out of which only two Rumals were found to be good quality. According to the petitioner, she is an Instructor and her instruction work has nothing to do with the production of ‘Rumal’. We are also otherwise of the opinion that this factor could not have been taken into consideration unless a proper order had been passed on the complaint. The work of the petitioner is that of instructing the students. The selected candidate is a student of the petitioner which by itself shows that she is reasonably a good Instructor. We cannot go into the merits of the selection and there is only one month left for the terms of respondent No.3 to be completed and therefore, we do not intend to set aside the selection. We have considered the matter. The respondent No.3 was selected for her appointment as Instructor on contract basis in Chamba Rumal Sewing Training Centre, Sultanpur (Chamba) for a period of one year vide office order dated 30.9.2008, her time is going to end in coming September. At this stage, it shall not be in the interest of justice to quash her appointment for the reasons aforesaid or to grant any relief to the petitioner, as prayed for as the fresh process shall take place for filling up the post in September/October, 2009. Therefore, without disturbing the present position, we hereby direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 that they shall now constitute a proper Committee having a 6 good experience in the field of ‘Chamba Rumal’ to select a competent person to impart better quality of training to the trainees in the centre(s) and not to include any person as a member in Selection Committee, who has no experience in the field. With these directions, we dispose of the present petition. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 27,2009(R)