IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6606 of 2010 Decided on: 19.10.2011 Lalit Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Demonstrator, Physical Education (DPE) in Government Senior Secondary School, Dadoh, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. 2. I had called for the record of the case and after verification of the record, I find that even if the petitioner is granted marks for experience and for Post Graduation, then also 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- his total marks would be less than that of respondent No. 4. Furthermore, as far as the experience certificate of the petitioner is concerned, no reliance can be placed on the same, since this experience certificate shows that he worked in the school from 1st April, 2005 to January 2006-07 and the same has been signed on 5th September, 2006. No reliance can be placed on a certificate issued in the year 2006, which shows a person to be working till the year 2007. 3. After going through the record, I feel that there is no reason to set aside the appointment of respondent No. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge October 19, 2011 (rajni)