IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. : 4823 of 2008. Decided on: 28th July, 2010. _________________________________________________________ Dharam Parkash. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Respondents No. 3 to 5, already exparte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): The petitioner was appointed under Apprentices Training in the trade of Lineman during February, 1982 for three years. He completed his training on 5th September, 1985. He was engaged as Beldar in Aug. Electrical Division, Maliana on daily wage basis w.e.f. 11.09.1985. The interviews for the post of Lineman were held on 10th July, 1989. The case of the petitioner was considered alongwith other eligible candidates by the duly constituted selection committee on 10th July, 1989. However, the petitioner was not found suitable. He approached the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 201 of 1987 and O.A. No. 570 of 1989. In sequel to the orders passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner was offered the post of Lineman by the respondent- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. Board vide memorandum dated 2nd September, 1996 and he joined his duties on the same day. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that similarly situated persons have been appointed as Lineman w.e.f. August, 1989 2. The case of the respondent-Board, precisely is that since the petitioner has joined his duties as Lineman without any protest, he cannot be given appointment from retrospective date. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner had completed three years Apprentices training in the trade of Lineman and, therefore, he was entitled to preference for the post of Lineman. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to the respondent-Board within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, the respondent-Board shall consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law within a further period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment. 3. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 28, 2010. (bhupender)