IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 15867 of 2008 Date of Decision: 05.12.2011 Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, son of Shri Ram Kumar, R/o Village Durgi, PO Panar, Tehsil Nahan Sirmour (HP) …….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2 2. Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1 3. Parent Teacher Association Govt. Primary School, Deed Panar, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour (HP) through its President. 4. Smt. Sushila Kumari, wife of Sharma Dutt, Resident of Village Daun, PO Parara, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour (HP). ……… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate, vice Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For respondents No.1&2 : Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General. Respondent No.3 ex parte For respondent No.4 : Mr. Vineet Vashishat, Advocate, vice Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) According to petitioner, private respondent, Smt. Sushila Kumari was appointed to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Government Primary School, Deed Panar in Dadahu Block, Sirmour, H.P. in violation of the Policy, in as much as she did not belong to the area in question. To substantiate this contention, petitioner has placed on record certificate dated 12.09.2007 issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Circle Dadahu, Sub Tehsil Dadahu, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. Admittedly, petitioner has also made grievances with regard to the same to the concerned Dy. Commissioner vide representation (Annexure A-4), which is yet pending. Also genuineness/correctness and validity of the certificate (Annexure A-5), relied upon by the petitioner needs to be examined by the authorities. This certificate indicates that perhaps private respondent is ineligible for consideration to the post in question. 3. Thus, without going into the merits of the petition, as is prayed for, a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to look into petitioner’s grievances and after associating all concerned, take a decision with regard to the eligibility of private respondent and the legality of the order of appointment issued in her favour. Needful shall positively be done within a period of three months from the production of certified copy of this judgment along with copy of the petition, including Annexure A-5. 4. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. 5th December, 2011 k.sharma