IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 234/2008 Decided on:8.3.2010 _____________________________________________ Nirmla Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to3 : Mr. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. For respondent No.4. : Nemo. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher on 5.11.2005 pursuant to interview held on 2.9.2005. Appointment of petitioner was challenged by respondent No.4 by way of OA (M) No. 267/2005. The same was directed to be treated as representation by the Director of Primary Education. He decided the same on 17.2.2006. Appointment of petitioner was declared void ab initio. Petitioner challenged this order by way of OA No. 82/2006. The same was directed to be treated as representation 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . yes 2 by the Director of Elementary Education with a further direction to decide the same by hearing petitioner as well as respondent No.4. He decided the same on 12.10.2007 (Annexure A-1). Petitioner has challenged order 12.10.2007 by way of this petition. Mr. K.S. Banyal has vehemently argued that order dated 12.10.2007 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has supported order dated 12.10.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The interview for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher was held on 2.9.2005. Petitioner and respondent No.4 appeared in the interview alongwith other candidates. Petitioner secured 43.1 marks and respondent No.4 secured 40.5 marks. Admittedly, petitioner’s uncle participated in the selection process. He could not participate in the selection process as per the norms prescribed by State Government for filling up the posts of Primary Assistant Teachers. The entire selection process got vitiated after the participation by the real uncle of petitioner. Mr. K.S. Banyal has vehemently argued that participation of the uncle of petitioner in the selection process could not alter the result of candidates. This plea merits rejection. Petitioner was given 12 marks in the personal interview and respondent No.4 was given 11 marks. In case respondent No.4 was granted 3 more marks, she could rank senior to petitioner in the merit. The 3 participation of the uncle of petitioner has definitely influenced the result of interview. Norms prescribed for filling up posts must be followed scrupulously. There should not be any scope of bias positive or negative in the entire selection process. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 8.3.2010 *awasthi*