IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 471/2008 Reserved on: 15.6.2010 Decided on:21.6. 2010 _____________________________________________ Madan Lal. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate and Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1 and 2. Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.9. None for respondents Nos. 3 to 8 and 10. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-State decided to fill up 661 posts of Forest Guards in Himachal Pradesh Forest Department, out of which 87 posts were allotted to Shimla circle vide letter dated 20.4.2007. These posts were advertised in different newspapers during the month of June, 2007. In sequel to advertisement, petitioner also 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 applied for the post of Forest Guard. The Physical Efficiency test commenced on 25.6.2007 and it was completed on 11.7.2007. The candidates, who qualified the Physical Efficiency Test, were called to appear in written test. It was conducted through University of Horticulture and Forestry at Nauni, Himachal Pradesh. The written test was held in Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, The Mall, Shimla on 16.7.2007. Evaluation was conducted by the University of Horticulture and Forestry Solan and the marks of written test were handed over to Forest Department on 28.8.2007. Consequently, circle level merit list was prepared according to the marks obtained in physical efficiency test and written test. 221 candidates under different categories were called for personality test on the basis of merit list prepared. Personality test was held in the office of Conservator of Forests, Shimla Circle, Khalini on 28.9.2007. As per the criteria laid down by the respondent department, 25 marks were allocated for physical efficiency test, 70 marks for written test and 15 marks for personality test. Petitioner secured 11 marks in physical efficiency test, 37.50 marks in written test and 6 marks in personality test. Cut off marks were 56.25 and the petitioner secured 54.50 marks. Mr. Deepak Kaushal has strenuously argued that his client being meritorious was required to be given more marks in the interview. He then contended that the petitioner had participated at National Level, as per Annexure A-4, and he was required to be given 3 marks by the committee. 3 Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the suitability of the petitioner has been adjudged in a just and fair manner by the selection committee. He also contended that the petitioner has not annexed Annexure A-4 at the time of submitting his application. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Physical efficiency test was held with effect from 25.6.2007 to 11.7.2007. Petitioner secured 11 marks under this head. He secured 37.50 marks in written test. The written test was conducted through University of Horticulture and Forest at Nauni, Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of the marks obtained in the physical efficiency test and written test, the candidates were called for personal interview. Petitioner was also called for personal interview. He has been awarded 6 marks. The committee, who has interviewed the candidates comprises of 3 members. Petitioner has not attributed any mala fide against the members of the interview board, who have interviewed the petitioner. The candidates, who have secured 6 marks in personality test at Sr. No. 5,7,10,14,22,25 and 28, as per Annexure A-5, have been found suitable and their names were recommended for appointment. Petitioner has secured only 54.50 marks and the cut off marks were 56.25. The suitability of the petitioner was to be adjudged by the interview board. This Court will not sit in appeal over the marks awarded by the committee/interview board. 4 Now, the Court will advert to the contention of Mr. Deepak Kaushal that his client has not been awarded 3 marks for participating at National Level. Case of the respondent-State is that petitioner has not annexed these certificates at the time of submission of his application. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-4. A bare perusal of Annexure R-4 reveals that the petitioner has not filed/annexed any documents to establish that he has participated at National Level in the game of Kabaddi. Had he submitted these documents, the same were bound to be mentioned in Annexure R-4. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.6. 2010 *awasthi*