IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 15291 of 2008. Decided on: 30.03.2010. __________________________________________________________ Pawan Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate vice Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-State has decided to fill-up 69 posts of Pump Operators on contract basis. These vacancies were notified on 14.7.2006. Petitioner also participated in the selection process. He has secured 62.76% marks. The last selected candidate has secured 69.78% marks. The suitability of the candidates has been adjudged by the duly constituted Selection Committee. In the Recruitment and Promotion Rules there is no provision for giving preference to the candidates who have done apprenticeship under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - appointment is to be made strictly as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. In view of this the petitioner cannot claim any preference for appointment on the basis of undergoing apprenticeship. Moreover, Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has apprised the Court that the selected candidates have already been appointed. The selected candidates were necessary parties. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground as well. Petitioner has not alleged any malafides against the members of the Selection Committee. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. March 30, 2010. (sck).