IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 5033 of 2008. Decided on: 7th September, 2010. Rajender Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. None for respondent No. 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Part Time Sweeper in Ayurvedic Dispensary, Gowalpather. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the respondent-State has decided to open Ayurvedic Dispensary in village Jamnoti, named as Ayurvedic Dispensary, Gowalpather in February, 1998. The State has also initiated the process for filling up the post of Part Time Sweeper. The District Ayurvedic Officer, Hamirpur, H.P. has issued a notice, whereby applications were invited for filling up the post of Part Time Sweeper at Government Ayurvedic Dispensary. The post was directed to be advertised by displaying it on the notice-board of the dispensary and of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The last date for receipt of applications was 17.04.1998 up to 10:30 A.M. and the date of interview was 17.04.1998 at 11:00 A.M. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. Petitioner and respondent No. 4 participated in the selection process. The respondent No. 4 was found suitable for the post of Part Time Sweeper and was offered appointment letter. It was never stipulated in the advertisement that the candidate should belong to the same village where the Ayurvedic Dispensary was opened. It was mentioned by the District Ayurvedic Officer, Hamirpur that copy of the notice be displayed on the notice-board of the Dispensary and of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The suitability of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 has been adjudged by the duly constituted selection committee. The Court will not sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the duly constituted Selection Committee. Petitioner could not substantiate the pleas of malafides. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 07, 2010. (bhupender)