IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.6019/2008 Decided on:14.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus Registrar, State Consumers Disputes Redrssal Commission and another. … Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vipin Potyaan, Advocate vice Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Respondent-Commission initiated the process for filling up the posts of Driver vide requisition dated 5.3.1988. The interview was conducted on 21.3.1998, 30.4.1998 and 1.5.1998. The selection process was completed on 1.5.1998. However, during the process of recruitment, State Government enhanced the age limit for employment from 35 to 38 years vide letter dated 27.3.1998. In order to give opportunity to those 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 candidates, who had crossed the age of 35 years but not 38 years, the respondent kept the result of interview/test held on 21.3.1998, 30.4.1998 and 1.5.1998 pending and issued supplementary requisition to all the Employment Exchanges in the State of Himachal Pradesh for sponsoring suitable candidates between the age group of 35 and 38 years. The interview for the candidates between the age group of 35 to 38 years was held on 10.4.1999. The name of the petitioner was not sponsored by any of the Employment Exchange in compliance to requisition dated 5.3.1998 and 15.6.1998. Petitioner has sought the quashing of entire selection process for filling up the post of Driver and also seeking direction to the respondents to consider his candidature. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. Petitioner had applied vide Annexure A-2 for the post of Driver. There is no date mentioned in Annexure A-2. The copy of the same was received in the State Commission on 26.11.1998. The application was received by the State Commission after the selection process was over on 1.5.1998. Petitioner could not be considered for the interview held on 10.4.1999 since he was below 35 years of age. The interview on 10.4.1999 was exclusively held for those candidates who fell between the age group of 35 to 38 years. Petitioner’s name has not been sponsored by any of the Employment Exchange for filling up the post of Driver pursuant to Annexure R-1. He has 3 been appointed as Driver by the District Consumer Forum on 24.12.1998 on daily wage basis. In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is not merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 14.7.2010 *awasthi*