NISHTHA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for interview/test for selection as Lecturer (Computer Application). She appeared in the interview for this post on 27.5.2011, and was assigned Roll No. 2. According to the result Annexure:P5 she is shown at Serial No.2 having secured 54 marks in the interview. This aspect is not disputed.

(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner challenges the candidatures of the third respondent but with the intervention of subsequent events, it is not necessary for me to go into that issue. This writ petition is pending before this Court since Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?No. 18.8.2011. CMP No. 3711 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner with the pleading that Sh. Gaurav Rana, who was one of the selected candidates, has not joined pursuant to his selection as he is already working in the Government Polytechnic, Sunder Nagar where his services have been regularized. In these circumstances, the petitioner being the next candidate in the order of merit, should and ought to be selected and appointed. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission submits that according to the Rules of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure & Transaction of Business and Procedure for the conduct of Examinations, Screening Tests & Interviews Etc.) Rules, 2007 (as amended up to 31st March, 2012), it is provided:

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India, 1995 (Supp (2) SCC 230, Asha Kaul (Mrs) and another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (1993) 2 SCC 573, Miss Neelima Shangla Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1986) 4 SCC 268, Jai Narain Ram Vs. State of U.P and others, AIR 1996 SC 703. .In support of this contention the petitioner should and ought to be appointed as the right accrues to him by virtue of his selection by being placed on the waiting list. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of J&K & Ors. Vs. Sat Pal, JT 2013 (2) SC 530 holding: