IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9190 of 2008. Decided on: 28.9.2011. __________________________________________________________ Shri Balak Ram … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : None. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG. for respondent No.1. None for respondents No. 2 to 5. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers, vide para 8 (a), (b) and (c):- “(a). That the appointment of respondents No. 4 and 5 to the post of rigger W-3 level being in contravention of rules regulations and having been made by ignoring all the requisite qualifications, may be quashed and set aside by issuing appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents. (b). That the applicant being the most suitable and meritorious candidate may be considered to be appointed for the aforesaid post of rigger W-3 level by issuing the appropriate writ, order or directions. (c) That in the alternative the applicant prays that after setting aside and quashing the appointment of R-4 and R-5 the respondent may be directed to hold the fresh interviews for the recruitment to the said post of rigger W-3 level. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. There is no reply on behalf of respondent No.1. However, as prayed for, it is permitted to adopt the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5. 3. Respondents No. 2 to 5 have taken the following stand:- “2. The date of birth of the applicant as per Annexure R-2/A is 10.02.1969. As such, he was nearly 33 years of age on the date of advertisement, that was October 07, 2002. However, as submitted the respondent No.4 is a Scheduled Caste candidate, and as per general condition No.2 contained in the advertisement (Annexure P-5), his age is relaxable for five years, being a scheduled caste candidate. The copy of the Scheduled Caste certificate is placed on record as Annexure R-2/B. 3. That the respondent No.4 has more than the required experience. He had submitted the experience certificate along with his application with respect to the following periods:- (i) 01.10.1987 to 01.4.1988 (ii) 17.2.1990 to 2.6.1991 (iii) 20.8.1991 to 3.2.1994 (iv) Oct., 1994 to 5.11.1996 (v) 26.10.1994 to 8.5.1998 (vi) 10.5.1998 to till date. The relevant Experience Certificates are being placed on record as Annexures R-2/C, R-2/D, R-2/E, R-2/F, R-2/G and R-2/H. As such, the respondent No.4 fulfils all the eligibility requirements and the original application deserves to be dismissed. 4. That the eligibility requirements with respect to the respondent No.5 are being reproduced below:- 1. The respondent No.5 passed his Matriculation in the year 1993. The copy of the Matriculation Certificate is placed on record as Annexure R-2/I. 2. That the date of birth of respondent No.5 is May 05, 1974; as such, being a General Category candidate, he was of age less than 30 years on the date of submission of application. 3. That the respondent No.5 had submitted experience certificate for the following periods:- (i) 1.4.1993 to 31.8.1996 (ii) 1.1.1998 to 31.12.2000 The experience certificates as being placed on record as Annexures R-2/J and R-2/K. 4. That the respondent No.5 also fulfils all the eligibility requirement and allegations to the contrary in the original application are wrong; hence denied. 3 5. That the Selection Committee for the post of rigger consisted of the following:- 1. Sh. Yogendra Kumar …Chairman. Deputy General Manager (E&C) Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam (SJVN). 2. Shri P.C. Padhy … Member. Deputy General Manager (P&A), SJVN. 3. Shri M.D. Bodh …Expert Member. Principal, ITI, Shamshi. 4. Shri P.C. Jassal. … Representative of Secretary SC/ST/OBC and Ayurveda & Transport. Minorities. 5. Shri S.S. Puniah … Member Under Secretary,HPSEB. (HP Govt. Representative). It would be seen that only two members were from the respondent organization, whereas rest of the three members were from Independent Department. The Selection Committee after going through the credentials and performance in interview of all the candidates, recommended selection of respondent No.4 and 5 and offer of appointment was issued to respondent No. 4 & 5 and they joined the corporation on 30.11.2002 & 29.11.2002 respectively. The Original Application deserves to be dismissed in view of the submissions supra.” 4. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5 and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 5. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he may make a representation supported by documents along with copy of this judgment to the respondents/competent authority within a month from today, who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within further three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) September 28, 2011. Judge. (cr)