IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 10903 of 2008 Decided on : 24.12.2010 Meera Sharma ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate for respondent No.4. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers, vide para 7(i), (ii) and (iii): “i) That the respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed to offer appointment to the applicant to the post of TGT(Arts) at Govt. Middle School, Naal by transferring the respondent No.4 to Govt. Middle School, Karana, where the post of TGT(Arts) is still lying vacant. ii) That in the alternative, the applicant may be offered appointment to the post of Para Teacher(TGT- Arts) at Govt. Middle, Karana. iii) That the entire record of the selection process for appointment to the post of TGT(Arts) including interview dated 6th November, 2003 may be kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken vide para-3: “That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable in the present form. It is submitted that the applicant has not approached this Hon’ble Tribunal with clean hands as no interview for the post of TGT(Arts) in Govt. Middle School, Nal(Complex Govt. Senior Secondary School, Dharampur Madhan) was conducted by the Selection Committee headed by the S.D.M., Theog. The S.D.M. Theog has intimated that in fact applications of the candidates who applied for the post of TGT(Arts) in Govt. Middle School, Nal were not presented before the Selection Committee by the Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Dharampur Madhn as the said post stood already filled up by way of posting a regular TGT(Arts) namely Shri Geeta Ram i.e. respondent No.4, therefore question of holding an interview for the post in question does not arise at all. Shri Geeta Ram had been posted as TGT( Arts) in Govt. Middle School, Nal(Complex GSSS, Dharampur Madhan) on promotion from the post of J.B.T. vide this Directorate of Education letter No. EDN-H(2)B(2)- 7/2003 Promotion dated 30-10-2003 and he resumed his duties in Govt. Middle School, Nal on 18-11-2003. The applicant in the present original application has alleged that she has not been offered appointment in pursuant to the interview held on 6-11-2003. this contention of the applicant is absolutely wrong and the same can not be admitted. Since posting orders of Shri Geeta Ram had been issued on 30-10-2003 much before the date of interview as alleged, therefore, question of conducting interview on 6.11.2003 does not arise, as the post in question stood already filled up. Apart from this, the applicant has not annexed any teaching experience certificate 3 on contract basis duly countersigned by the Dy. Director of Education concerned. As per the provisions of the Para Teacher Policy, the candidates who have worked in the Govt. schools on contract basis and whose services have been dispensed with on the joining of the regular hands shall be offered appointment as such in view of the interim order of the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 415/2000 tilted as Baldev Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and others. The retrenched contract appointees are not suppose to appear before the Selection Committee for interview, they shall be offered appointment as such by the head of the institution concerned where he/she has applied, provided he/she satisfies the authority regarding his/her being retrenched contract appointee. The applicant has failed to produce any teaching experience on contract basis duly countersigned by the Dy. Director of Education concerned as per the provisions of the Policy. In view of this position, the applicant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present original application on one or the other pretext, therefore, the same being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.” 3. Vide order dated 18.4.2005, private respondent No.4 has adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. 4. In view of above reply, in case the petitioner has still any surviving grievance with regard to legal and factual aspects of the matter, subject to her making a comprehensive representation supported by materials, if any, alongwith copy of this judgment to respondent No.2 within one month from today, the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law and justice by taking into consideration the 4 cases of similarly situate person, if any, and explore the possibility whether the petitioner can be accommodated against an existing vacancy, within next three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and private respondent No.4, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 24th December, 2010 (vt)