CWP(T) No. 6669/2008 20.09.2010 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D. K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.2 Seals of the record produced are opened and perused by Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, in the presence of Mr. D. K. Khanna, Advocate. 2. Facts are short and not in dispute. For filling-up the post of Lecturer History (School cadre), applications were invited by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. Petitioner applied for the same. She was selected and her result was also declared in the newspaper. She made a representation on 4.5.2000 to the Secretary of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission inviting his attention to the fact that even though she had been declared successful as a candidate in the Scheduled Caste category but however no recommendation was forwarded to the State for her appointment. Since no decision was taken by the respondents petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition. 3. In the return respondents have averred that in total 65 posts for Lecturer History (School cadre), were advertised. Eventually they were increased to 78 out of which 11 posts were to be filled up amongst the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Result was declared showing the petitioner to have successfully qualified as a Scheduled Caste category candidate. However one Neel Kanth made a representation about the non-inclusion of his name in the successful candidates under Scheduled Caste–Ex-servicemen category. Respondents found that the said person had actually appeared for an interview but inadvertently was shown to be absent in the merit list. Petitioner was wrongly declared as a successful candidate against the post reserved for a Scheduled Caste-Ex-servicemen category candidate. It was further observed that one Gorakh Nath belonging to OBC- Ex-servicemen category who had actually not appeared in the interview was declared as a successful candidate at Sl. No. 78 of the list. 4. The net effect is that three errors were committed by the respondents. A person who had not appeared at all was shown to have appeared and declared as a successful candidate and a person who had actually appeared against Scheduled Caste-Ex-servicemen category was declared not to have appeared at all. Much can be said about the functioning of the Public Service Commission. I refrain from adding anything further, save and except that the Commission needs to improve its functioning. 5. No interim relief was granted to the petitioner. All posts stand filled up. At this stage no direction can be given to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner against the posts which stood advertised at the relevant time. 6. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the fact that new posts of Lecturer in the subject of History (School cadre) are lying vacant. Mr. Gupta further submits that his client is ready and willing to accept fresh appointment in accordance with the prevailing policies formulated by the Government for such posts. Also she is not interested for any pecuniary benefits for the past. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner otherwise was not eligible for the post. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment, as a Lecturer History (School cadre), in accordance with law. She may have to compete with the other eligible candidates but however, while taking decision the authorities shall take the entire background into account. Necessary action be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 20, 2010 (rana)