IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 8434 of 2010. Decided on 30.06.2011. _____________________________________________________ Surjeet Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 5. : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Though the matter was directed to be disposed of on 28.06.2011, however, it is transpired at the time of dictating the judgment that one Ruchi Chauhan was also interviewed alongwith the petitioner and respondent No. 5 for the post of P.T.A. teacher on 5th September, 2007. Today, the case was listed only to ascertain whether Ruchi Chauhan, who was second in merit, was gainfully employed or not. It is represented by the learned counsel for the parties that she had already joined her duties in some other institution and is not keen to be appointed against the post held by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner and respondent No. 5 were interviewed for the post of P.T.A. teacher on 5th September, 2007. As per Annexure P-1, petitioner has secured 72.3 marks and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - respondent No. 5 has secured 60.2 marks. One Ruchi Chauhan, has secured 68.17 marks and she was second in merit. Respondent No. 5 has filed a complaint against the petitioner, which led to the initiation of inquiry being conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur. Petitioner assailed the inquiry report furnished by respondent No. 4 by way of CWP No. 982 of 2010. The same was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 29th March, 2010, whereby respondent No. 4 was again directed to conduct the inquiry. Respondent No. 4 completed the inquiry as per Annexure P-2. According to him, petitioner could not be given seven marks for higher qualification and five marks for experience. However, fact of the matter is that even if twelve marks are deducted/subtracted from the marks allotted to the petitioner, his marks will come to 60.3 and the marks obtained by respondent No. 5 are 60.2. 3. Now, as far as Ruchi Chauhan is concerned, according to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, she had already joined her duties in some other institution, though she was second in merit. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties at P.T.A. teacher in Government High School Haban, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P.. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 30, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - - 4 - `