IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.9487 of 2008 Date of decision : April 29, 2011 Kam Raj …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner has been working as Class IV employee in Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh since 1987. He is Matriculate. Recruitment & Promotion Rules of Forest Department provide for reservation of 10% posts of Forest Guard, for Class IV employees of the Forest Department. However, appointments against these 10% posts are to be made on the basis of limited competitive examination. As per Rules, Class IV employees, who are Matriculate, can compete, after they have put in five years of service and if they are Middle pass Class IV employees, they can compete if they are in service for ten years or more. 2. A competitive examination was held in the year 2003, for appointment of Class IV employees to the pots of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Forest Guards, on the basis of competitive examination. Petitioner and respondents No.4 to 7 took that examination, all being eligible. All of them passed the competitive examination, but merit of respondents No.4 to 7 having been assessed higher than that of the petitioner, they were appointed and the petitioner was ignored. He is aggrieved by this action of the Department and has, therefore, filed the present writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State and the functionaries of the State as also the learned counsel appearing for private respondent and gone through the record. 4. Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that two of the private respondents, namely respondents No.4 and 5, were junior to the petitioner and they had not even been confirmed in Class IV posts and, therefore, they would not have been appointed. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Rules do not provide that those Class IV employees, who are not confirmed, are not eligible to compete. When the appointment is to be made on the basis of competitive examination, question of seniority does not arise and, therefore, submission that respondents No.4 and 5, being junior to the petitioner, could not have been appointed, is also devoid of merit. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. April 29, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J