IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2853 of 2008 Decided on : June 28, 2010 Harbinder Kaur …Petitioner. Versus Secretary, Technical Education and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms Rita Goswami, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 is stated to have been filed in April, 2009, or say about 14 months back. Copy of the reply is available with the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel representing the other two respondents. However, reply is not available on the record. Despite the Court Master, on my instructions, having instructed the Incharge of Writ Section to trace the reply and get it placed on record, it could not be traced. With the consent of the learned counsel representing all the parties, a copy of the said reply, available with respondent No.2, alongwith its Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… annexures, has been ordered to be taken on record of this case. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2, in appointing respondent No.3 as Trainer, Embroidery and Needle Work, vide order dated 18th August, 2008, copy Annexure R-3/13. It is alleged that candidates were called for interview for the said post, vide advertisement, which appeared in Punjab Kesri issue dated 14th June, 2008 and 20th June, 2008 and that in response to those advertisements, petitioner and several other candidates appeared for interview. They were interviewed on 25th June, 2008 for the post in ITI Palampur and on 30th June, 2008 for the post in ITI Dharamshala. Marks were reserved under various heads, like qualification, experience, etc. and lists were prepared. In respect of the interviews held for the post at Palampur, list Annexure R-2/B and in respect of the post at Dharamshala, list Annexure R-2/G were prepared. As per these two lists, one Kanta Kumari ranked first, while the present petitioner ranked second. Lateron, Respondent No.3 Kalpana Sharma and Kanta Kumari were appointed, despite the fact that respondent No.3’s ranking was third, both for Dharamshala post and Palampur post. 3. Petitioner sought information, under the Right to Information Act and on getting the information, she came to know that in the practical test, which was conducted after …3… the interviews and after the preparation of the aforesaid two result lists, Annexure R-2/B and R-2/G, respondent No.3 was assigned 38 marks, while the petitioner was awarded only 32 marks and because of that respondent No.3 was placed above the petitioner. According to the petitioner, practical test was not part of selection process, but it was after the preparation of the final results, in the form of lists Annexures R-2/B and R-2/G that a scheme was devised to favour respondent No.3. 4. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of the three respondents. It has been stated by respondents No.2 and 3 that holding of practical test was the part of interview and so the practical test was held on 9th August, 2008 and since the performance of respondent No.3 was much better than that of the petitioner, she was awarded more marks compared to the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Advertisements nowhere indicate that any practical test was to be conducted. On the top of advertisement, Annexure P-1/A, it is written that it was a “Walk-in-Interview”. The very nomenclature suggests that no test was intended to be part of selection process. Advertisement further shows that the candidates could be required to overstay till next day. Date of interview was mentioned in the advertisement. That meant the interview …4… could spill over to the next day, in case of large number of candidates appearing, in response to the advertisement. Spilling over could have been only to the next day. Interviews for the post were held on 25th and 30th June, 2008. That means interviews for the post at Palampur, which, as per advertisement, were to be held on 25th June, 2008, could have spilled over to 26th June, 2008 and similarly in the case of post at Dharamshala, spilling over of interviews could have been to 1st July. In the present case, practical test was conducted on 9th August, 2008, or say much after the interviews were conducted. 7. Abovestated position apart, as a matter of fact, selection process had been completed and merit lists drawn long before the holding of practical test. Those lists, as already noticed, are Annexure R-2/B, in respect of the post at Palampur and Annexure R-2/G, in respect of the post at Dharamshala. According to these merit lists, one Kanta Kumari stood first for Palampur and Dharamshala posts, while the present petitioner stood second for the posts at both the places. Respondent No.3 was at number three in the aforesaid merit lists. Both these lists are authenticated by the members of the Selection Committee. Ranking of the candidates, as noticed above, is also marked in the lists. It was only after the preparation of these lists that practical test was held and respondent No.3 having been shown to have scored more marks than the petitioner and on account …5… of the aggregation of the marks indicated in the aforesaid two lists and the practical test result that respondent No.3 was raised in merit from third position to second position. The action of holding practical test, after the result had been finalized, was malafide, on the face of it, as it resulted in undue favour to respondent No.3 and disadvantage to the petitioner. 8. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed, appointment of respondent No.3 Kalpana Sharma is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner, who stood second, as per lists Annexures R-2/B and R-2/G, be considered for appointment against the post to which respondent No.3 Kalpana Sharma had been appointed. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. June 28, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J