IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2257 of 2009. Decided on: 6.7.2009. __________________________________________________ Kuldeep … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. .… Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5 : Mr. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate Generals. For Respondent No.4 : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ The petitioner was appointed as D.P.E. in Government Senior Secondary School, Gharan, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. by the P.T.A. His appointment was challenged by one Mr. Anshul Guleria. The Committee after the receipt of the complaint has looked into the matter deeply. It is apparent from the findings recorded by the Committee that the notice issued, whereby applications were called, was not bearing any date. It is also not borne out from the records that the notice was affixed at any conspicuous place. There is no office endorsement number in the notice. According to the Principal, call letters were sent to all the candidates by the Pradhan of P.T.A. on 13.9.2006. The last date for receipt of applications was 18.9.2006, however, the call letters were issued by the Pradhan on 13.9.2006 for the interviews fixed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 for 19.9.2006. Thus, no proper procedure was followed at the time of appointment of the petitioner as D.P.E. even as per the old norms fixed by the State Government. In the present case due publicity was not given by the Parent Teachers Association before filling up the post in question. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma has argued that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of policy circulated in the year 2006 by the State Government. He further contended that the selection of the petitioner could not be assailed/challenged on the basis of the policy/guidelines issued on 27.5.2008. There is no merit in the submissions of Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma. In earlier policy also wider publicity was required to be given to enable all the eligible candidates to apply for the post in question. The petitioner has assailed the recommendations made by the Committee before the deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties and going through the records has affirmed the findings of the Committee. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is self contained. The findings recorded by the Committee are affirmed. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. In view of the disposal of the main petition, the application pending, if any, stands disposed of. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 6, 2009. (cr) 3