IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2880/2008 Decided on: 19.3. 2009 Parveen Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate vice Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.2. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner obtained the Bachelor of Education degree from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in the month of May, 1993. He was called for interview for the test of Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) by respondent No.2 on 2.4.1995. He apprehended that since the University in question may not be recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh, he may not actually be allowed to appear in the interview. On this apprehension, he approached the learned Himachal Pradesh 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Administrative Tribunal in the month of March, 1995. The learned Tribunal on 24.3.1995 permitted the petitioner to appear in the screening test/ interview. However, a rider was put that if the petitioner is finally appointed/selected, his appointment would be subject to the decision of the original application. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that a decision was taken by the State Government whereby degree offered by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in Bacholor of Education has been recognized. In these circumstances, in case the petitioner had been interviewed and found suitable and appointed, his appointment stands regularized. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 19.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*