IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 7773/2008 Decided on:26.11.2010 _____________________________________________ Sureshta Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. D. Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 and 4. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has obtained one year diploma in Cutting and Tailoring in the year 1984. She was appointed as Tailoring/Craft Teacher in Gram Panchayat Mohi Tailoring Centre in the year 1998. She worked in Gram Panchayat Mohi Tailoring Centre till 2000. Thereafter the selection process was initiated for filling up the post of Tailoring/Craft Teacher pursuant to notification dated 4.9.2000. Petitioner was called for interview. According to the pleadings, her name was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 recommended by the duly constituted selection committee on 27/28.3.2001. However, appointment letter was not issued in her favour. 2. According to Mr. Dushyant Dadwal since the petitioner had already been working as Tailoring/Craft Teacher, she was required to be offered the appointment. According to Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, respondent No.4 has been selected as per the criteria laid down in the notification dated 4.9.2000. Respondent No.4 has been found more meritorious vis-à-vis petitioner for filling up the post in question. 3. It has come in the reply that respondent No.4 has been selected on merit. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the selection of respondent No.4, who has been selected on the basis of merit, determined by the duly constituted selection committed. 4. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 26.11.2010 *awasthi*