IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.12363 /2008 Decided on:14.6.2011 _____________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Respondent-State has initiated the process for filling up 62 posts of constables excluding the ex- servicemen and sportsmen in Solan District and petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature for the post of constable and he was assigned chest No. 5854. He qualified the written test and physically efficiency test. However, his name was not recommended for the post of constable. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 2. Mr. Javed Khan submitted that his client belongs to Scheduled Caste category and as per the performance of his client in written test and physical efficiency test; his name ought to have been recommended against this category. 3. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the petitioner has only secured 38.6 marks whereas the last candidate selected in the scheduled caste category has secured 55.2 marks. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner had applied for the post in question in the Scheduled Caste category. He was duly interviewed and he also qualified the physical efficiency test. The process had been initiated for filling up 62 posts. Petitioner has secured 38.6 marks whereas the last candidate selected in the category of Scheduled Caste has secured 55.2 marks. The name of the petitioner was at Sr. No. 7. The total posts reserved for Scheduled Caste Home Guard were three. Consequently, since the name of the petitioner did not figure in the merit list, there is no illegality in the action 3 of the respondents for not recommending the name of the petitioner for the post of constable. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 14.6.2011 *awasthi*