IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1206/2001 Reserved on.17.3.2008 State of H.P. and others. …Petitioners. Versus Smt. Poonam Sharma. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioners : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) The respondent herein filed an original application before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal which was registered as OA No. 1933 of 2000. In the said original application, the respondent submitted that she had appeared in the interview for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Bag. The case of the petitioner was that the result has not been declared by the respondents. She prayed that the respondents be directed to declare the result and issue appointment to the selected candidate. When the matter was taken up on 27th July, 2007, the following order was passed: “Learned Addl. Advocate General informs this Tribunal on the basis of record that the applicant has been selected as Water Carrier and her appointment letter has not yet been issued. It is likely to be issued shortly. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 In view of the aforesaid representation, the respondents are directed to issue the appointment letter of the applicant within two weeks from today. The present O.A. in view of the aforesaid terms stands disposed of.” Thereafter the State filed a review petition, which was rejected by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the present writ petition. We have heard Mr. R.M. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate for the respondents. The stand of the State is that selection does not give a right for appointment and, therefore, the directions of the learned Tribunal to issue the appointment letter to the applicant within two weeks is totally against law and liable to be set aside. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on the basis of which it has been urged that since there was stay with regard to the earlier policy of recruitment of Water Carrier and later the policy stand amended, the State was not in a position to appoint the respondent as a Water carrier. We are not in agreement with both the contentions raised on behalf of the State. A bare perusal of the order dated 27th July, 2007 shows that the learned Additional Advocate General made a statement that the respondent had been selected as a Water Carrier and her letter of appointment shall be issued shortly. It is on the basis of this statement that the learned Tribunal directed that the letter of appointment be issued within 2 weeks. The learned Tribunal, of its own, did not direct the issuance of letter of appointment. This offer came on behalf of the State. The Tribunal only fixed the time for issuance of letter of appointment. Since the order was passed on the statement given by the learned Additional Advocate General, we feel that the State cannot be permitted to ask for review of the order. 3 As far as the supplementary affidavit is concerned, these points were never urged before the Tribunal either in the reply to the original application or in the review petition filed before the Tribunal. Even in the writ petition, these points have not been urged and only a supplementary affidavit has been filed. These points were never raised before the learned Tribunal or in the writ petition filed in this Court and, therefore, cannot be permitted to be taken at this stage. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is rejected with no order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), J. March 17, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *Awasthi*