IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP-T No. 2147 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.4.2011. Sunil Kumar …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents No.1 to 5: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the Respondent No. 7: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the appointment of respondent No.7 as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Salol-1 under the sports quota. 2. According to the petitioner, the applicant was more meritorious but respondent No.7 was selected. It was further alleged that the petitioner had come to know that respondent No.7 had produced wrong and false certificate at the time of his selection. The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.7 in fact forged the certificate of his 2 sister Smt. Vandana Guleria and showed it to be his certificate and thereafter obtained employment on a fake certificate. The State in its reply has virtually admitted this serious challenge to the qualification of respondent No.7 and it has been stated that respondent No.7 has confessed by submitting an affidavit that he has used the certificate of his sister for the purpose of seeking post of Primary Assistant Teacher and further the petitioner has stated that he has no objection if this job is given to any other candidate. The stand of the State, however, is that now the scheme for appointment of Primary Assistant Teachers has come to an end and no person can be appointed against this scheme. 3. The only question which arises is whether this Court can issue a direction to the State to appoint a person on a post, especially when the scheme for such appointment is no longer in operation. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time if the respondent No.7 had not been selected the petitioner would have been the most suitable candidate. We cannot be sure about this since admittedly it was not only the petitioner and respondent No.7 who appeared for the interview but some other person(s) also appeared for the interview. Be that as it may, I am of the considered 3 opinion that once the scheme has come to an end this Court has no power to issue an order of appointment. Therefore, though the appointment of respondent No.7 was totally illegal no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 27th April, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.