IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6257 of 2008. Decided on 8.9.2010 Gurmeet Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The application was filed before the Tribunal mainly with the following prayer: “i) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, it is submitted that directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to: a) allow the applicant to join the training course alongwith other persons and further allow him to complete the same without keeping any ill-will against the applicant and thereafter consider the applicant for appointment as Male Health Worker alongwith his other batch mates." 2. In reply, at para 3(ii), it is stated as follows:- “It is submitted that since the roll numbers had already been issued to the sponsored candidates of the age group between 17 to 32 years as per earlier list of sponsored candidates, the serial number/roll number started from 1-A onwards zone wise were alloted to those candidates whose names were sponsored by way of supplementary lists. Hence, roll number 243-A stands alloted to all the three candidates of the three zones in order of series of the respective zone. Therefore, since the supplementary lists of sponsored candidates consist of zone wise allotment of roll numbers started from 1-A onwards, no loss whatsoever being alleged has been caused to the applicant. As for the process of interview, a state level committee was constituted and the interviews were held at the venues of all the aforesaid three zones by the same members. The markings as to the fact of marks awarded to each candidate at the different zones was made on spot by the respective interviewing members in ink to adopt a fair method of selection. Therefore, the results were properly finalized after a proper assimilation of the marks and the same could not be said to have led to any manipulation as ultimately the State level selection from amongst the zone wise interviewed candidates was prepared. Hence, the marking list which is in the form of statements candidate wise containing registration number, roll number, date of birth, educational qualifications, the category of the applicant as to whether it is a general or any other specified category of reserved candidates, the marks obtained in matriculation examination and the written examination plus the marks obtained in viva-voce held by way of the interview of candidates with the total marks awarded to each candidate in three different zones, was prepared strictly in accordance with selection criteria.” 3. There is no rejoinder. In view of the stand thus taken in the reply/affidavit, in case the petitioner has still any grievance left, it will be open for him, either to approach the 1st respondent or work out the same, in appropriate proceedings, without leaving such liberty. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. September 8, 2010 (HL) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge