IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5566 of 2008. Decided on 02.08.2010. _____________________________________________________ Virender Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : None. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. None for respondent No. 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Respondent No. 2 had notified five posts of Lecturers (School Cadre) in Political Science, reserved for out-standing sportsmen in the month of November, 1997. The requisition was received by the respondent No. 3 on 26.11.1997 and the list of eligible candidates was issued and their names were displayed on the notice board on 27.11.1997. The list remained displayed on the notice board up 25th December, 1997. Petitioner’s name was registered with the employment exchange vide registration No. 9301463, dated 24.10.1996. It is also mentioned by the respondent No. 3 in the reply that the petitioner is a National Level Sportsman, however, his name has not been sponsored by it inadvertently. This lapse come to the knowledge of respondent No. 3 only when the petitioner visited the office of respondent No. 3 in the month of September, 1998, that too after a period of 9 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? months. It is in these circumstances, that the name of the petitioner could not be sponsored by the respondent No. 3. The list of the candidates remained displayed by the respondent No. 3 on the notice-Board from 27.11.1997 to 25.12.1997. It was expected from the petitioner to check up the list of the candidates whose names have been sponsored for the post in question. However, he has visited the office of respondent No. 3 after a gap of nine months. Therefore, it was in these circumstances that the name of the petitioner could not be considered against the sportsman category for the aforesaid post. However, subsequently the name of the petitioner was sponsored against his qualification of B.Ed. and in the month of September, 1998 against his qualification of M.A. Political Science. Now, we are in the year, 2010. 3. Consequently, no directions can be issued to consider the case of the petitioner at this belated stage since the respondent No. 4 has already been considered and appointed to the post in question. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge August 02, 2010. (bhupender)