IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 94 of 2009. Decided on: December 1, 2010. Kumari Kamlesh …..appellant. Versus State of H.P. & others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the appellant: Ms.Rita Goswami, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 3 and 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The appellant is the petitioner (applicant before the Tribunal). The petitioner instituted the proceedings before the Tribunal with certain grievances regarding the selection and appointment of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Sahagai in Tehsil Ani, District Kullu, H.P. The petitioner, alongwith sixth respondent and others, participated in the selection process. The sixth respondent was selected and appointed. The petitioner had two grievances – i) she was not granted marks for unemployment status; and ii) respondent No.6 cannot, in any way, be appointed since he is the real brother of respondent No.5, who is the member of the Selection Committee. As far as the unemployment certificate is concerned, it is seen that the same was produced by the petitioner after the interview. According to the petitioner, the same could not be produced at the time of interview since on that date, she was not granted the certificate by the authority concerned despite her strenuous efforts taken before the authority. However, it is the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner has 2 submitted the unemployment certificate before the finalization of the result. 2. As far as the second relief is concerned, it is seen that the sixth respondent was appointed and since has been terminated and it is submitted that nobody else has been appointed. According to the petitioner, she has topped in the merit and yet on account of nepotism, the sixth respondent has been appointed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appointing authority as well as the Selection Committee has not been impleaded as party. Thus, being aggrieved the petitioner has come up in appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, the SDO(C) and the Block Primary Education Officer. There is no appearance for the other respondents. 4. The grievance of the petitioner can be looked into from another angle. Since the tainted appointment had already been terminated and in case nobody else has been appointed, it is only proper that the person next in the merit in the selection is appointed. Therefore, there will be a direction to the third respondent SDO(Civil) to look into the records and take appropriate action for the appointment of a Primary Assistant Teacher in the Gram Panchayat, with notice to the Panchayat. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is the next in the merit, as per the list prepared by the Selection Committee, she shall be offered the appointment. The needful, as above, shall be done by the SDO(C) within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 3 5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 1, 2010. ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/pankaj) Judge.