IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3348 of 2010 Date of decision : December 3, 2010 Satya Prakash Paul …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 : M/s Paresh Sharma & Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner and several other persons had been working as seasonal DDT Beldars, with Health Services Department, from 1978 to 2001, when on account of the job, for which they used to be appointed seasonally, ultimately came to an end. They approached this Court, by filing a Civil Writ Petition, for being considered for appointment as Beldars, in future, against vacancies in other departments and also for being considered against regular post of Class-IV. This Court, vide judgment dated 20th November, 1995, Annexure PB, issued the following directions: “1. The Secretary (Health) to the government of Himachal Pradesh shall issue instructions to all concerned, more particulars, Chief Medical Officers of the Districts and Block Development Officers to maintain a seniority list of DDT Beldars. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. The said seniority list shall be duly published in the notice board of the Block Development Officer and also at the office of the Chief Medical Officer of the District. Appropriate publicity shall also be given in the neighbouring places where such Beldars are working. 3. Whenever the season starts, appointments shall be offered according to the seniority. Further, we direct the State Govt. to issue appropriate circular to all concerned for consideration of the above DDT Beldars against such class-IV posts where they can be appointed as per rules.” 2. In compliance with the aforesaid judgment, seniority list was prepared, which is Annexure PC. Petitioner’s name appears at Serial No.3, in the said list, Annexure PC. This seniority list was published on 15th March, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner had been approaching the authorities of Health Department, repeatedly, for being considered for a Class-IV post in the Department. In 2007, he was interviewed for a part-time post of Class-IV and appointed on monthly wages of `1,100/- 3. Respondents appointed one Ram Swaroop, whose name figures at Serial No.10, on regular basis, as Class-IV employee. Petitioner’s grievance is that his name being above that of Ram Swaroop (at Serial No.10), the post has not been offered to him. It is also his prayer that several regular posts of Class-IV employees are lying vacant in the Department, but he and other similarly situated persons are not being considered, for appointment, against those vacant posts. …3… 4. Reply has been filed, on behalf of the respondents, in which it is stated that the government has taken a decision to appoint persons against vacant posts of Class-IV employees, only on part-time basis and that Ram Swaroop, whose name figures at Serial No.10 in the seniority list, Annexure PC, was appointed against a post reserved for OBC. They have stated that no person of general category from the seniority list, Annexure PC, has been appointed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that even the persons, whose names figure at Serial Nos.1 and 2, i.e. above the name of the petitioner, in the seniority list, have also not been appointed against any post. He also admits that other persons, named in the seniority list, except at Serial No.10, are also unemployed. Person at Serial No.10, i.e. Ram Swaroop, has been appointed against a vacancy reserved for OBC category candidate. Since the Government has taken a decision to fill the posts only on part-time basis and no person from general category, whether above or below the petitioner, in the seniority list Annexure PC, has been appointed, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he has been discriminated. 7. Furthermore, there was no specific direction from this Court, vide judgment dated 20th November, 1995, …4… to appoint the petitioner and other similarly situated Beldars against vacant posts of Class-IV employees. Direction, under which the petitioner claims appointment, was to the State Government to circulate to all concerned for consideration of the DDT Beldars against such Class-IV posts where they could be appointed, as per rules. 8. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of, having become infructuous. December 3, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J