IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9426/2008 Decided on:31.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Rajinder Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he has not been offered appointment by the respondent-State for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher against the posts reserved for ward of ex-serviceman. The Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur was asked by the respondent-State to sponsor the names of the eligible candidates, who had passed their B.Ed. degree upto the academic year 1990 in order to fill up 30 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 posts of Trained Graduate Teachers reserved for wards of ex- servicemen. Respondent-State conducted interview on 3.10.2002 on batch-wise basis. On completion of interview process, 30 eligible candidates, who had passed their B.Ed. upto 1990, were offered appointment. The name of petitioner figured at Sr. No.32. 2. Mr. Surinder Thakur has strenuously argued that candidate at Sr. No. 27, namely, Shamsher Singh has wrongly been considered for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. It has come in the sur-rejoinder that in fact Shamsher Singh also belongs to 1990 batch and when he filed affidavit to this effect on 10.1.2003, appointment letter was issued in his favour. 3. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has also brought to the notice of the Court that the panel, which was prepared in the year 2002 for filling up the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers from the wards of ex- servicemen, has exhausted on 3.10.2003. The appointments to the posts of the Trained Graduate Teachers have been made strictly as per batch-wise and on merit. Since the respondent-State was required to fill up 30 posts and the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.32, he could not be 3 considered for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher as the panel has exhausted on 3.10.2003. 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 31.12.2010 *awasthi*