IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5709 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 10, 2011 Sandeep Kumar Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents-No. 1 to 3. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In this petition the petitioner has challenged the selection of private respondents No. 4 to 15 as Constables. It is not in dispute that the selection for the post of Constable was undertaken by the respondent/authorities some time in February, 1999. The eligibility of the petitioner and the private respondents is not in dispute. All candidates (parties) to the petition were eligible. According to Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner even though the petitioner and respondent No. 4 had acquired same marks in the selection process yet respondent No. 4 was appointed after holding draw of lots. She has Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 assailed the process of selection by laying challenge to the allotment of 20 marks, out of 85 marks, for personal interview. According to her this has resulted into arbitrariness and manipulation of marks. 2. Having gone through the record I am afraid that the contention needs to be rejected. Respondents in their reply which still remains unrebutted have clarified that no tie took place between petitioner and private respondent No. 4, who had secured more marks than the petitioner. 3. Petitioner himself had participated in the selection process. Hence having so done it would not be open for him to assail the process of selection on the ground that marks for interview were fixed on the higher side. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others versus State of Haryana and others, (1985) 4 SCC 417, reliance on which is so placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is under these circumstances, in the given facts, is thus misconceived. Further the process of selection took place in the year 1999. Consequently the present petition devoid of any merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 10, 2011 (PK)