IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8486/2008 Reserved on: 6.12.2010 Decided on:21.2. 2011 _____________________________________________ Sunil Chandel. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate vice Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondents No.4 to 6 for the posts of Constables. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-State initiated the process for filling up 300 posts of Constables in H.P.A.P. Battalion, Junga, 2nd H.P.A.P. Battalion, Dharamshala and 3rd H.P.A.P. Battalion, Pandoh. These posts were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment on the basis of population of the Districts. 35 posts were to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 be filled up from District Shimla. Petitioner submitted application for considering his candidature against 35 posts. The eligibility criteria has been prescribed in Annexure A-1 dated 9.4.2002 for recruitment of the posts of constables. The candidates were required to pass physical efficiency test, written test and personal interview. Petitioner has qualified the physical efficiency test, written test and interview, however, on the basis of overall merit, he could not be offered appointment to the post of constable and respondents No.4 to 6, who were better placed in the merit, were selected and recruited for the posts of constables. 2. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar has strenuously argued that the criteria should have been restricted to the residents of the Shimla District alone. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Umesh Kanwar have vehemently argued that 35 posts were reserved for Shimla District, but any candidate, who was bonafide resident of Himachal Pradesh could apply for the same. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. According to Annexure A-1, the recruitment was open on the basis of the population of each district 3 headquarters and only requirement was that the candidate must be registered with Employment Exchange of the district concerned. Thus, it was not restricted to the residents of a particular district. In case the recruitment was restricted only to the candidates of a particular district, it would have been violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. The suitability of the petitioner has been adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee comprising of D.I.G. (Southern Range), Superintendent of Police, Shimla and Commandant, Himachal Pradesh A.P. Battalion No.1, Junga. No mala fides have been levelled against the members of the Selection Committee. The Court will not sit in appeal over the recommendations made by a duly Constituted Selection Committee. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.2. 2011 *awasthi*