IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6632 of 2008 (OA No. 1440 of 2000) Date of decision: 8.9.2010 Umesh Chauhan .. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Mr. D.K.Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 8 Mr. Rakesh Dogra, Advocate, vice Mr.Y.P.S.Dhaulta, for respondent No. 20. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.37. Mr. R.S.Gautam, Advocate for respondent No. 38. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Original Application was filed in the year 2000 with the following relief:- 2 “(a) That in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that the appointment to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) be quashed and set- aside and the Respondent No.2 may be directed to make recommendations to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) strictly in accordance with the rules and law and applicant may be offered the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) forthwith with all consequential benefits.” 2. In the reply furnished by the H.P. Public Service Commission , it is stated as follows: “2. The applicant is estopped from challenging the selection process after she failed to find place in the merit list on the basis of her performance before the interview board. She was well aware of the selection procedure as is evident from her O.A. also, that the screening test is held only to short-list the large number of candidates and selection is made on the basis of performance of the candidates before the interview board. She appeared before the interview board and was having no objection against the selection process. It was only after she failed to find place in the list of selected candidates that she objected to the selection process. As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal Vs. State of J& K AIR 1995 SC 1088 the applicant is estopped from challenging the selection process after his/her failure to find place in the selection list. 3. The applicant has declared the selection made by the Commission wrong, illegal, unjust and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the bias of presumption. She has not cited even a single example where person having less qualification than her has been selected. As such her O.A. 3 based on presumptions deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.” “6.(ii) The essential qualification for the post of Lecturer School Cadre is Masters Degree in English as such the higher qualification in the subject concerned and experience of working on the identical post coupled with performance and presentation before the interview board are some of the points which count for the selection of a candidate. The suitability for the post is to be adjudged by the interview board and the applicant cannot be his own judge. The interview board has considered the suitability of all candidates fairly and judiciously and no illegal, wrong or arbitrary selection has been made as alleged by the applicant.” 3. There is no rejoinder. It is fairly clear from the affidavit that the petitioner also underwent the same selection process as notified by the 2nd respondent. As per the process, interview of the short-listed candidates and performance in the interview are the guiding factors for the preparation of the merit list. According to the self assessment made by the petitioner, she is highly qualified. There is no dispute as to the qualification of the petitioner. But as stated in the affidavit by the Commission, the duty of the Commission is not evaluation of the qualification for the purpose of assessment of merit. The qualification is one factor but performance in the interview is also a relevant factor. Therefore, the qualifications possessed by the petitioner have been rightly evaluated by the Selection Board as well as the performance in the interview was also assessed. There is no allegation of malafides 4 against the Selection Committee. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice . September 8, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (GR/Pankaj) Judge.