CWP No.1297 of 2009. 7.5.2009. Present: Mr.K.B. Khajuria, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.R.M. Bisht and Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.Gs., for respondents No.1 to 4. CMP No.2476 of 2009: Allowed. The amended memo filed with this application is taken on record. CWP No.1297 of 2009: This petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, dated 3.3.2009, whereby she has upheld the report of the Inquiry Committee, which has held that the petitioner was unduly benefited while giving him appointment as Shastri teacher on PTA basis in Government High School, Raila, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. The facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as Shastri teacher on PTA basis by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) in Government High School, Raila. Alongwith the petition, the petitioner has attached the original assessment made by the PTA itself as Annexure P-1. This assessment itself shows that the petitioner had the lowest marks out of the three candidates in Matric. Even in the Shastri examination, his marks were lowest as compared to the other two candidates. Reason for his appointment is that he was given 7 marks in the interview by the President of the PTA, while the other two candidates were given only two marks each by the President. As far as marks given by the Secretary and the Subject Expert are concerned, all the candidates were given three marks each in the interview. If the marks given by the President are discounted, the petitioner would have been at the bottom of the merit list. The very high marks given by the President to the petitioner, as in contradistinction to the lower marks -2- given to the other candidates, clearly indicate that there is something more in the matter than is on the record, if we are not applying the new criteria laid down by the Government, because we are, prima facie, of the view that the new criteria cannot be applied retrospectively. However, merit should not be ignored under any circumstances, whether under the new policy or under the old policy and in this case, we find that the meritorious candidates had been ignored by the PTA. We, therefore, find no error in the orders of the authorities below and the petition, being without merit is dismissed accordingly. CMPs No.2387 of 2009 and 2388 of 2009: Infructuous. (Deepak Gupta), Judge . May 7, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.