IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 6022 of 2008. Decided on: 19.06.2010. __________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar Thakur. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The petitioner appeared in the test/interview for the post of Constable in H.P.A.P. Battalion No.1 in the month of September, 1997. He qualified the written test/interview. He was not offered appointment letter. His antecedents were got verified in accordance with law. He was involved in two criminal cases, i.e. F.I.R. No.67 of 1995 under Sections 307/452 of Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 Arms Act, dated 21.3.1995 and case F.I.R. Noo.263/1995 under Sections 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, dated 26.11.1995. He was acquitted in case F.I.R. No.263 of 1995 on 18th August, 1997. However, so far as the case arising out of F.I.R. No.67 of 1995 is concerned, that was pending trial when the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - recruitment took place. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner could not be offered appointment. Since the selection process has culminated in the month of September, 1997 and the petitioner was acquitted on 15th March, 1999, he cannot be offered appointment at this belated stage. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted at the Bar that the life of the panel was only for one year. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 19, 2010. (sck).