IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12231 of 2008 Decided on : 11.10.2011 ________________________________________________ Smt. Shalu Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer:- “That the appointment of the respondent no. 3 as E G S instructor may be quashed and set aside and interview dt. 28.05.2004, held for the post of E G S instructor at Mahikar Matial, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour may be ordered to be held again or in the alternative the applicant may be declared as successful 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 candidate for the post of E G S instructor at Mahikar Matial, Tehsil Nahan, District – Sirmour, H.P.” 2. In reply, the following stand has been taken on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 vide para 6.2:- “That in reply to this para it is submitted that as per information received from the Block Resource Coordinator i.e. respondent No.2 that the selection of respondent No.3 i.e. Sh. Satpal as EGS Instructor has been made according to the policy, because he got first position in the merit and no favour has been made to him. It is further stated that as per the information received from the respondent No.2 that Sh. Satpal belongs to the same Village whereas the applicant belongs from another Village. Apart from this, it is submitted that even if the marks for IRDP are not added in favour of Sh. Satpal even then Sh. Satpal stands on first position. Therefore, the contention of the applicant is not accepted as correct that the respondent No.3 was declared as successful candidate by ignoring the lawful claim of the applicant.” 3. Respondent No.3 has not filed any independent reply and has instead adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, as per order dated 28.5.2007, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, on abolition of which the petition was transferred to this court. 3 4. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 5. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to factual or legal aspect of the matter, she shall be certainly free to submit a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.2 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, who shall consider the same and take final decision in the matter within further three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and private respondent No.3, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any, in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. October 11, 2011. (Lsp)