CHINTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:-

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that vide advertisement dtd. 17/2/2024, respondent No.5 invited applications from the interested candidates along with their bio data for the post of Mid-Day Meal Worker. Pursuant to afore advertisement, petitioner, along with other persons, applied, vide application dtd. 23/2/2024, for the post in question. Petitioner along with other candidates was interviewed on 28/2/2024, but since no result was declared, she has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs reproduced hereinabove.

(3.) Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein it came to be transpired that result of the selection process initiated, in terms of advertisement dtd. 17/2/2024, could not be declared for the reason that many applicants had opposed the selection of respondent No.6, Smt. Kala Devi, who despite her being President of School Management Committee, participated in the selection process for the post of Mid- Day Meal Worker. Having taken note of afore objections raised on behalf of other applicants, respondents, instead of declaring the result of the selection process conducted in terms of advertisement dtd. 17/2/2024, issued another advertisement dtd. 7/6/2024, thereby calling fresh applications for the post in question. Petitioner herein also applied in terms of fresh advertisement, but fact remains that she was unable to secure place in the merit list.