IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 16140 of 2008, Decided on: _17.6.2009. Naib Singh. .… … … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh … … … Respondents. and others. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? No.1 For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa. Advocate General No.1 to 3. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Adovate General. For the respondents: None. No.4 and 5. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that the respondent-State had issued advertisement, whereby the applications were invited for filling up the posts of forest guards. One post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe/IRDP. The petitioner submitted application under this category. He appeared in physical efficiency test on 21.5.2007. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - He secured 15.50 marks out of 25 marks in this test. He appeared in written test on 5.8.2007. He secured 17.25 marks out of 60 marks. He appeared for personality test on 21.9.2007. He secured 5 marks out of 15 marks. His overall tally of marks was 37.75. Respondent No.4 had secured 56.25 marks. He was selected and offered appointment. Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate has vehemently argued that one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe/IRDP/BPL as per the advertisement. He then contended that the respondent No.4 did not belong to BPL family and his appointment was bad in law. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General has argued that one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe/IRDP and was never reserved for BPL category as argued by Mr. A.K. Gupta. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. A bare perusal of advertisement, dated 25.4.2007 (Annexure P-1) reveals that one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe/IRDP. There is no mentioning of expression ‘BPL’ in the advertisement. The petitioner and respondent No.4 belong to Scheduled Tribe category. One post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe/IRDP. The petitioner has secured only 37.75 marks in the physical efficiency test, written test and personality test. Respondent No.4 has secured 56.25 marks in the category of Scheduled Tribe/IRDP. He was recommended by the Selection Committee and was consequently appointed. The selection process has been initiated strictly as per the rules framed by the respondent-State. He was less meritorious vis-à-vis respondent No.4. The post in question was - 3 - reserved for Scheduled Tribe/IRDP category and not for BPL category as argued by Mr. A.K. Gupta. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla) Chief Justice. June 17, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 4 -