IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3796 of 2009 Decided on: May 15, 2010 Kamlesh Kumar ….. Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “ That a writ of mandamus may be issued and the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of T.G.T (Non Medical) on regular basis from the date the other candidates have been given appointment, with all consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioner’s apprehension is that the appointment is not offered to him only on account of the alleged investigation conducted by the vigilance with regard to the complaints that the multiple choice questions were attempted by more than one person in the same answer sheet. It is seen from the report of the inquiry 2 committee that there is no incriminating material so as to conclusively establish that in the case of the answer sheet of the petitioner more than one person or somebody other than the petitioner had attempted the answers. No doubt, the answer sheet contains the inscription of the answers by using two pens but as rightly pointed out by the inquiry committee, there was no specific instruction that more than one pen should not be used while answering the multiple choice questions. 3. Be that as it may, so long as the petitioner is not proceeded against and particularly in view of the fact that in the case of all those persons where there was evidence regarding such attempt by more than one person, they have been charge-sheeted, it is only just and reasonable that the petitioner is not denied the appointment only for the reason that his case was also subjected to scrutiny by the inquiry committee. 3. Therefore, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to process the application of the petitioner in the light of the declaration as above and in case he is otherwise eligible/entitled for the appointment, the required action for appointment shall be taken within two weeks from the production of the copy of this judgement. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 15, 2010 (Justice Deepak Gupta ), (TM) Judge.