NARESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the appointment of 3rd respondent as Dai. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent does not possess the requisite qualification. What is the qualification for appointment to the post of Dai is not quite clear from the pleadings either of the petitioner or respondents. Be that as it may, it is stated in the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:-

(2.) Even if 3rd respondent is ousted, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner will be the rightful claimant in the selection process. Be that as it may, in case the petitioner has a case that in terms of R&P Rules for recruitment of trained Dai at the relevant time 3rd respondent is not duly qualified, it will be open to her to point out the same before 2nd respondent. In the event of petitioner approaching 2nd respondent, the matter will be examined by 2nd respondent, if the petitioner is next candidate to be considered. By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that 2nd respondent shall consider the matter only, if in the process the petitioner will be the next candidate to be considered in the event of 3rd respondent being ousted.

(3.) Needful action, as above, will be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation by the petitioner, provided that the petitioner files the representation within a period of one month. It is also made clear that the action, as above, will be taken only with notice to the parties.