IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP-T No. 3062 of 2008. Date of Decision: 28.9.2010. _______________________________________________ Deepak Gautam ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner :Mr.Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. For Respondents 1&2. :Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For respondent No.3. Mr.Dalip Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not continuing the services pursuant to his appointment vide Annexure:A-2. This order was issued on 28th June, 2004 stating that the petitioner has been appointed on a fixed salary of Rs.2500/- per month on contract basis for one year in the first instance. The employment was granted by the Indian Red Cross Society. It seems that thereafter, interviews of drivers for ambulances were called for by respondents No. 1 and 2, who took over the responsibility of maintaining and plying ambulances. Accordingly, the petitioner was also called for the interview but it seems that he could not make the bench mark on merit. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 2. Reply of respondent No.2, namely, Senior Medical Superintendent states that the personal interviews and practical test of the candidates who appeared in the interview on 7.12.2005 was conducted and the petitioner was not selected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that once employment having been granted, it was but incumbent upon the respondents to have continued to him in employment and he could not be subjected to any other or further test/interview etc. as the selection was made after ascertaining that he fulfills the eligibility conditions etc. 4. This is a wide proposition urged to be accepted in the context of the present case. Without entering into the controversy that having appeared in interview, being unsuccessful it would not be open to the petitioner to challenge his exclusion, I must also note that the other candidates who selected at this interview have not been impleaded as party respondents. 5. Leaving this factor aside, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that as and when there is a vacancy for driver, the petitioner shall be given due weightage in the selection. In case he satisfies the eligibility conditions, he shall be considered for being appointed. The petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 28, 2010(R)