IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11302/2008 Decided on:18.3.2011 _____________________________________________ Virender Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.…Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner. For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Respondent-State sent a requisition for 33 posts of Lecturers (School Cadre) in different subjects to the Director of Youth Services and Sports on 29.9.2000. Name of the petitioner was sponsored by respondent No.3 on 2.4.2003. He was called for interview on 28.10.2003. However, till date petitioner has not been issued any appointment letter. 2. Mr. Vinod Thakur has strenuously argued that once the name of the petitioner had been sponsored, he was interviewed and his suitability has been adjudged, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 respondent-State was bound to issue appointment letter to him for the post of Lecturer (School Cadre). 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the ban was imposed by the respondent-State on direct recruitment on 13.3.2003, petitioner could not be issued appointment letter. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner stood sponsored by respondent No.3 in the sports category for appointment to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in Chemistry on 2.4.2003. He appeared in the interview on 28.10.2003 and his suitability was adjudged by the competent authority. The ground taken by the respondent-State in the reply not to offer appointment to the petitioner is that ban was imposed on 13.3.2003 on direct recruitment. It is settled law that the person, who has been selected, has no indefeasible right to get appointment. However, in the instant case, the only ground taken to deny the petitioner appointment letter is the ban imposed by the State Government on 13.3.2003. The reply was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 on 21.2.2006. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that after 2006, ban might have 3 been lifted by now by the respondent-State on direct recruitment and the petitioner is required to be issued appointment letter. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.1 and 2 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in the subject of Chemistry, from the date the ban has been lifted, on direct recruitment. It is made clear that the petitioner shall only be entitled to notional seniority and not to arrears of salary. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 18.3.2011 *awasthi*