IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 6984 of 2008. Decided on: November 9, 2010. Sunil Kumar …..Petitioner. Versus The H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board and ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G, for respondents No. 1 to 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) That the respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed to interview the applicant afresh under Roll No. 55652 under the OBC category and then to determine the final merit and thereafter the respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed to offer appointment to the applicant for the post of Vidya Upasak; ii) That the respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant like seniority and salary etc. from the date other similarly situated persons have been selected and sent for training of Vidya Upasaks. iii) That the respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed not to offer appointment letter to respondent No.4 i.e. Shri Sunil Kumar, S/O Shri Anant Ram under Roll No. 55651 in the interest of justice;” 2. In the reply at paragraphs 3 to 5, it is stated as follows: “Para 3 to 5. Not admitted. The replying respondent submits that applications for the posts of Vidya Upasaks were inter- alia received from (i) Sh. Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Anant Ram Kapoor, Rajgarh Road, Solan near Tehsil Solan (OBC category) and (ii) Sh. Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Raj Kumar C/O Chetar Singh Bhawan, Ner Shingar Hotel Rajgarh Road, 2 Solan and Roll No. 55651 and 55652 respectively were allotted to them on their application forms which are annexed as Annexure-R-I and R/II. However, while sending the Roll No. slips for the screening test fixed for 27.2.2000 due to similarity in the names, the roll No. 55651 allotted to Shri Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Anant Ram was shown on the Roll No. slip of Sh. Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Raj Kumar and vice-versa. Both the candidates appeared in the screening test and also qualified the same. However, at the time of dispatch of call letters for the personal interview fixed for 13.7.2000 at Solan the correct Roll Nos. i.e. 55651 allotted to Shri Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Anant Ram and 55652 assigned to Sh. Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Raj Kumar were mentioned. During interview both the candidates apprised the Board of the change in their Roll Numbers in writing vide their applications annexed as Annexure-R/III and R/IV. Both of them were interviewed and their correct marks according to their original roll Numbers allotted to them on their application forms as well as their categories were taken into consideration at the time of making overall assessment for the purpose of selection. On the basis of their overall performance i.e. marks obtained in the written screening test as well as their performance during the personal interview, none of them were found suitable for selection. The candidate who had appeared in the screening test/personal interview have not challenged their non- selection. It is some other Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Mangat Ram R/O Rajgarh Road, Kotla Nala, PO Solan, Tehsil & Distt. Solan, HP, who seems to have some-how possessed photocopy of the call letter (Annexure-A/2) which was in fact issued by this Board for personal interview to Sh. Sunil Kumar S/O Anant Ram Roll No. 55651, Rajgarh Road, Near Tehsil Solan. The applicant was never allotted this Roll No. nor was he interviewed under any of the above mentioned two Roll Numbers and is wrongly praying for his selection. Since the applicant was neither declared successful in the written test under either Roll No. 55651 or 55652 nor did he ever appear in the personal interview under these Roll Numbers, so the question of his selection for the post of 3 Vidya Upasak under the category of OBC does not arise. It is worthwhile to mention here that the copy of OBC certificate annexed as A/1 also does not pertain to the applicant and in fact it is also that of Sh. Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Anant Ramwhereas as already stated above, the applicant is Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Mangat Ram. The replying respondent further submits that perusal of application forms submitted by S/Sh. Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Anant Ram and Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Raj Kumar on which Roll No. 55651 and 55652 have been assigned to them (Annexure-R-I and R/III) show that both of these forms were filled up by the same person affixing different photographs on them and signing in English on one and in Hindi on the other. Both of these candidates are suspected to be impersonating for Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Mangat Ram who consequent upon non-selection has now filed this O.A………….” 3. There is no rejoinder as yet. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for an opportunity for filing rejoinder, we do not think that at this distance of time, it will be proper to give such a permission. Be that as it may. In case, the petitioner has any dispute with regard to the factual and legal position as stated in the reply, as above, it will be open to him to approach the first respondent, in which case, the matter will be duly examined by the first respondent, with notice to the petitioner and any other affected party and appropriate action in accordance with law in the matter will be taken within another four months. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 9, 2010. ( Justice V.K.Ahuja ), (karan) Judge.