IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8793 of 2008 Decided on: 21.4.2011 Jeevan Lata …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl, Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. . . . . None for respondent No. 4. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner has assailed appointment of respondent No. 4 on the ground that his brother has participated in the selection process. However, the petitioner has not placed on record any tangible material to substantiate this plea. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has brought to the notice of the Court that in fact Pradhan and not Up-Pradhan has participated in the selection process. 2. The selection of respondent No. 4 has been made by a duly constituted selection committee. This Court will not sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the selection committee. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge April 21, 2011 (K. Attri)