JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This is the fourth writ petition filed at the instance of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to have been selected alongwith one Prem Lata as Accredited Social Health Activist worker (hereinafter referred to as the ''ASHA Worker'') but was not imparted training. This programme was discontinued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, however later in the year 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2013, the same was revived and thereafter the criteria for selection of ASHA Worker was laid down as under:- i) ASHA must be primarily a woman resident of the village preferably Married/Widow/Divorced /Separated and preferably in the age group of 25 to 45. ii) ASHA should have effective communication skills, leadership qualities and able to reach out the communication. iii) She would be a literate woman with formal education upto eight class. iv) She should have family and social support to enable her to find the time to carry out her tasks. v) The education and age can be relaxed if only no suitable woman with this education is available in the area. vi) Adequate representation from disadvantage population groups should be ensured to serve such groups better. Vii) 531 ASHAs who were selected and had undergone training in 2007 will be selected provided that they fulfill eligibility criteria. 3. In the meanwhile, CWP No. 8856 of 2013 came to be filed in this Court and vide judgment dated 21.11.2013, a direction was issued to consider the name of such ASHA Workers, who were selected and had undergone training in the year 2007, subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions, as stipulated in communication dated 19.10.2013. 4. According to the petitioner, she had already been subjected to interview process/selection process /training process in the year 2007, therefore, she would not undergo to selection process again and accordingly filed a CWP No. 7020 of 2014, which came to be disposed of by learned Division Bench of this Court on 05.01.2015 with the direction to the respondent to issue the selection list and take all steps which are required after issuing the said selection list. 5. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that she came to know that three (3) posts of ASHA Workers were lying vacant and once such vacancy was at Gram Panchayat, Panthera, District Bilaspur and claiming a preferential right of appointment, she filed CWP No. 4054 of 2015, which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 08.01.2016, which reads as under:- "It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is vacancy of Asha Worker existing in Gram Panchayat, Panthera, District Bilaspur and she would be satisfied if respondents are directed to consider her case of appointment against the said vacancy. Respondents are not averse to such proposal, but have only one reservation that, it is not the petitioner alone who has a right of consideration, but all similarly situated persons do have a right of consideration. 2. I find merit in this contention. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner along with all the other eligible candidates against the vacancy of Asha worker existing in Gram Panchayat, Panthera, District Bilaspur, within a period of six weeks. 3. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), leaving the parties to beard the costs. Copy Dasti." 6. It appears that selection was held pursuant to the aforesaid order but the petitioner being not selected, has filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that she was not informed about the result of the selection and the interview conducted in the said selection is nothing but an eye wash. 7. As regards the first contention, I really find no merit in the same as there is no obligation casts upon the respondents to have informed each of the candidates regarding the outcome of the selection and there would be no irregularity much less illegality, in case, the result is communicated to the selected candidates alone. 8. As regards the second contention, the same is equally without merit for the reason that even if the marks for the interview in favour of the selected candidate i.e. Respondent No. 9 - Neelam are totally excluded and thereafter even if full marks are awarded in favour of the petitioner even then she stands nowhere close in merit to the selected candidate. The petitioner has secured 4.6 marks on the basis of her educational qualification whereas respondent No. 9 has secured 5 marks but then respondent No. 9 not only belongs to scheduled castes category but is also a widow and has therefore rightly been awarded 5 marks each under the said category and 4 marks in the interview and in this manner has secured 19 marks out of 30 marks whereas the petitioner on the other hand has been awarded 4.6 marks under the educational qualification as she is 10th pass with 45.86% marks as compared to 49.71% marks secured by respondent No. 9 in 10th Class. The petitioner belongs to the general category and therefore not entitled to any of the additional marks which have been awarded to respondent No. 9. 9. That apart, it would be noticed that out of total seven (7) candidates, the petitioner has secured only 7.1 marks which incidentally happens to be the least marks that have been obtained by any of the candidates and all the other six candidates rank higher in merit than the petitioner. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.