IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 15027/2008 Decided on:21.6.2011 _____________________________________________ Puneet Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). State Government had initiated the process for filling up seats for two years Junior Basic Teachers’ Training Course in the year 2004. 200 seats were allotted to Mandi District out of 800 seats in the whole State. The common entrance test was conducted by respondent No.3 on 18.4.2004. The result was declared 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 on 1.7.2004. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he had submitted his application for considering his candidature for the post of O.B.C. (sports person). Precise case of the respondent-State is that since 6 seats fell in the share of distinguished sports person of general category according to 200 points roster, case of the petitioner was considered against O.B.C. category. 2. Mr. Dharamvir Sharma has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents of not considering the case of the petitioner for two years Junior Basic Teachers’ Training Course against O.B.C. distinguished sports person is illegal, arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar have argued that 6 seats fell in the share of distinguished sports persons according to 200 points roster at Sr. Nos. 31, 66, 93, 131, 166 and 193. In other words, their submission is that no post was reserved for O.B.C. category (sports persons). 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 5. Petitioner had earlier filed original application bearing O.A. No. 27/2007 assailing the decision of the respondent-State for not considering his candidature in the O.B.C. category (sports person). The same was permitted to be treated as representation to the Principal Secretary Education vide judgment dated 9.1.2007. The same stood decided after hearing the petitioner in person on 4.4.2007. Order dated 4.4.2007 is self-contained and speaking. It is evident from the reply filed by the respondents that according to 200 points roster, 6 seats at Sr. No. 31, 66, 93, 131, 166 and 193 came in the share of distinguished sports persons of general category. Thus, there was no post available for the category of O.B.C. (sports person). In view of this, case of the petitioner has rightly been considered against the O.B.C. category. However, since he has been found lower in merit amongst the candidates of O.B.C. category, his case could not be considered for appointment. 6. In this case there is an inordinate delay in filing the petition. The written test was held on 18.4.2004 and the result was declared on 1.7.2004. Earlier original application was filed on 2.1.2007. In the meantime new academic session 2006-2008 was 4 completed and even thereafter next academic session 2008-2010 has also been completed. Thus, the petition is also barred by delay and laches. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 21.6.2011 *awasthi*