IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8599 of 2008. Decided on: 23.03.2011. _________________________________________________ Neeta Ram. … 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. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 already ex- parte. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate vice Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he had supplied all the documents asked for. He was interviewed alongwith respondent No.4 on 8th July, 2002. Precise case of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - the petitioner is that he has not been given any marks under the category belonging to ‘unemployed family’. Record was called for. Same has been produced by Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General. I have gone through the record. Petitioner has, in fact, not filed any affidavit that no member of his family was in Government/Semi-Government service. Petitioner could not substantiate that he has filed the said affidavit alongwith his application. 2. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. March 23, 2011. (sck).