CWP (T) No.16619 of 2008. 24.12.2010 Present: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent No.1 to 3. Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate, for the respondent No.4. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner has vehemently argued that employment to private respondent No.4 was wrongly given for the reason that she had filed a false affidavit. 2. This petition was filed in the year 2002. No interim order was passed at the time of motion. Even on 8th May, 2008, Court had itself perused the record. 3. State has not filed any reply. However, from the reply filed by respondent No.4, which still remains uncontroverted, it is clear that not only private respondent was selected by a duly constituted committee, but on the land belonging to the private respondent school building already stands constructed. 4. Moreover, it is also averred that petitioner is otherwise not eligible for appointment in question as her husband is gainfully employed and other members of her family are also working as Government servants. 5. Consequently, at this stage, this Court would not interfere with the matter. 6. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge December 24, 2010 rana/cs