JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Meena Devi, had initially filed Original Application No.670 of 2017 before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal; and upon its abolition, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.3361 of 2020, seeking the following relief:-

“(a). That this original application may kindly be allowed and the selection of the respondent No.4 as Language Teacher may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to re-draw the merit of the candidates excluding the merit of the TET. ”

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner having passed Matriculation Examination, Senior Secondary (Plus Two) Examination, B.A. (Pass Course) III Year Examination, Master of Arts in Hindi and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from University of Kashmir, Srinagar [as per the certificate issued on 02.09.2004, at Page 20 of Paper Book] and having passed Language Teachers Eligibility Test (LT-TET) in the year 2013 was eligible for post of Language Teacher as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 16.11.2013 [Annexure A-1] and though Respondent No.3 [Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Bilaspur, initiated the selection process for filling up various posts of Language Teachers including four posts reserved for Scheduled Castes [SC] category in the month of July 2017 and pursuant to commencement of selection process, the petitioner was called for interview by Respondent No.3 as per communication dated 14.07.2017 [Annexure A-3] and she appeared in Interview on 24.07.2017, and a total of 24 candidates participated in Interview including Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi], leading to selection of Respondent No.4 as a Language Teacher by the Respondents.
In this backdrop, the grievance is that the petitioner has higher overall merit of 140.69 marks [excluding TET marks], whereas, Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] had 138.73 marks [excluding TET marks], yet, the non-selection of the petitioner, despite having higher overall merit and selection of Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] who had lesser overall marks was illegal, arbitrary and thus in this backdrop, Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] as a Language Teacher has been questioned, with the prayer to set-aside her appointment and to appoint the petitioner as Language Teacher, with all consequential benefits.

STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3-STATE AUTHORITIES:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 01.01.2018, Respondents 1 to 3/ State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 30.11.2018, of Director of Elementary Education, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 
3(i). Reply-Affidavit raises an objection that the petitioner was not maintainable. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the applicant and other candidates were called for interview on 24.07.2017 in the office of Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh and candidates who secured more marks as per the entries for batch-wise selection, were selected/appointed as Language Teachers on contractual basis. Reply-Affidavit indicates that as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules the batch-wise selection for post of Language Teacher is made on the basis of seniority of within a batch, which is selected from the date of issuance of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Degree and Private Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] has been selected as Language Teacher, in accordance with the Rules. It is in this backdrop, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition.

SEPARATE REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.4:
4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 01.01.2018, Private Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] has filed a separate reply.
4(i). Paragraph No.3 of Reply-Affidavit indicates that private Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] had been appointed as Language Teacher in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is further averred that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules expressly provide that in case within a batch, more than one candidate has pass