IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7761 of 2008 Decided on: 26.11.2010 Surjit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that appointment of respondent No. 4 is in transgression of notification dated 26.6.1999. 2. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that his client i.e. respondent No.4 was appointed on the basis of the decision taken by respondent No. 3, Gram Panchayat, Goel Jamala. 3. The Court is of the view that the appointment to the post in question should have been regulated strictly as per notification dated 26.6.1999. Consequently, with the consent of the parties, the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- appointment of respondent No. 4 is quashed and set aside. It is made clear that the selection process be re-initiated, strictly as per notification dated 26.6.1999. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 shall be permitted to participate in the selection process. Till the culmination of the selection process, respondent No. 4 is permitted to discharge his duties. The Selection process be completed within a period of three months from today. 4. With these observations/directions, the present petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 26, 2010 (K. Attri)