IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1546/2008 Reserved on: 8.10.2009 Decided on: 9.10.2009 Pritam Chand. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, A.C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.Gs. for the respondent. Rajiv Sharma, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-State issued advertisement for filling up 13 posts of various trades in the 3rd India Reserve Battalion Pandoh from Kangra District. There were two posts of Washermen. One post was reserved for Ex-serviceman (general) and the second post was reserved for the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 candidate belonging of OBC category. However, the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Palampur. He was interviewed alongwith other candidates for the post of Washerman. The name of the petitioner was not recommended by the Recruitment Committee since he did not belong to Ex-serviceman (general) or OBC category. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate has strenuously argued that once the petitioner has been issued the interview letter and interviewed by the Recruitment Committee and qualified the necessary tests, he was required to be offered the appointment. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner did not belong to Ex-serviceman (general) or OBC category, he could not be offered appointment. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. It is not in dispute that two posts of Washermen were to be filled in 3rd India Reserve Battalion, Pandoh from Kangra District. One post was reserved for Ex-serviceman (general) category and the second post was reserved for OBC category. The candidates belonging to these categories were not available. The fact that the petitioner has been issued the interview letter will not confer any right to him to be appointed to the post in question. It has come in the reply that the call letter has been issued erroneously. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. He could not be considered against the vacancy reserved for Ex-serviceman (general) and OBC category. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to point out any instructions issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh that the post 3 reserved for Ex-serviceman (general) or OBC category could be interchanged. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma), 9.10. 2009 Judge. *Awasthi*