IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 14066 of 2008 Decided on : 9.11.2011. ________________________________________________ Miss Monika Kumari … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Ms Madhu Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. _____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge.(Oral) The petitioner and private respondent No.6 had participated in the process for selection to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher (in short ‘PAT’) and the latter was successful. Being aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the selection mainly on the grounds that whereas she was a graduate and respondent No.6 was only plus two, while she was awarded only five marks in the personal interview, respondent No.6 was given 13 marks and secondly that at the relevant time, respondent No.6, who was already working as Panchayat 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Takniki Sahayak, could not be said to be unemployed and as such could not have been awarded ten marks on that count at par with the petitioner. 2. The records of the selection under challenge have been produced and perused. 3. Insofar as the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding marks awarded in the personal interview is concerned, suffice it to say that the same could have been adjudged only on the basis of the performance of the respective candidates at the time of interview and the best persons to have evaluated their performance were the members of the selection committee. In the absence of any mala fide alleged or proved against the members of the selection committee, there is no other material before this court to arrive at a different conclusion with regard to the respective merit of the petitioner and respondent No.6 adjudged on the basis of personal interview. 4. Now while adverting to the second contention regarding award of marks to respondent No.6 on the basis of her status as an unemployed person, admittedly she was working as Panchayat Takniki Sahayak at the material time. However, the record reveals that it was not an employment in the strict sense of the word. It would be seen that as per notification dated 18.5.2005, Annexure R-1, Panchayat Takniki Sahayak was entitled for payment to the extent of 2% of the total cost of each work to be carried out by the concerned Gram Panchayat and supervised by him/her as Takniki 3 Sahayak, as service fee. Thus, to my mind, the selection committee has also committed no error in treating respondent No.6 as unemployed. 5. Above all, the fact remains that respondent No.6 is a widow and was allowed five marks on that score. 6. The table given below depicts the respective merit of the petitioner and respondent No.6 leading to selection of the latter as PAT:- Applicant:- +2 marks (actual %age) B.A. PG Profess ional Training Widow/ Destitute women Unemplo yment Personal Interview Total Remark 25.75 10 - - - -10- -5- 50.75 Respondent No.6 +2 marks (actual %age) B.A. PG Profess ional Training Widow/ Destitute women Unemplo yment Personal Interview Total Remark 23.25 - - - -5- -10- 13 51.25 Selected 7. In view of the above, I do not see any lawful cause or basis to disturb the selection of respondent No.6 as PAT and that too when she has already worked against the said post for the last more than five years. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. The petition, so also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 9th November, 2011 (lsp)