1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1646 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.9.2008 Jitender Jagta …Petitioner Vs H.P. Public Service Commission & others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate For respondents No 2 & 3. Mr. P.K Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. For respondent No.4 Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28th August, 2008 ( Annexure P-3 ) of Secretary, H.P. Public Service Commission, respondent No.1 herein, whereby his application for admission to SAS (Part-1) preliminary examination, 2008-09 has been rejected, on the ground that he is not an employee either of the Government of Himachal Pradesh or any State sponsored Undertaking/Corporation/Board/Autonomous 1 Whether the reports of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. 2 body. It appears from the record that some examination called SAS (Part-1) examination is conducted by the H.P. Public Service Commission. It is the employees of State of Himachal Pradesh or the employees of State sponsored undertaking/Corporation/Boards/Autonomous, with five years’ service, who are eligible to appear in that preliminary examination. Writ petitioner is an employee of Cost Cultivation Scheme-Agro Economic Research Centre. He also applied for admission to the aforesaid preliminary examination. His application was forwarded to the Secretary Education by the honorary Director of the aforesaid centre. Secretary Education forwarded that application to respondent No. 1 with the recommendation that he be admitted to the preliminary examination. However, respondent No.1 has rejected the application on the aforesaid ground. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that he is an employee of the University and, therefore, like other employees of the University, he is also eligible to sit in the aforesaid preliminary examination. We have been taken through various documents filed with the present writ petition. One of the documents is Annexure P-8 written by the Registrar of H.P. University to the Principal Secretary, Education, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, whereby a request has been made for integration of Agro Economic Research Centre, of which the petitioner is an employee, with the H.P. University. There is 3 another document, i.e. Annexure P-7 regarding appointment of two persons as employees of the centre. This document shows that the Centre in question is an entity separate from the H.P. University but the Vice Chancellor of the University is involved in the appointment of its employees, in his capacity as Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Centre and not on account of his being the Vice Chancellor of University. In view of these two documents, it cannot be said that the petitioner is an employee of the H.P. University or say an autonomous body sponsored by the State Government. 3. Documents on record show that the centre is funded by the Central government and, therefore, it may be presumed that the centre is an undertaking or autonomous body sponsored by the Government of India and not by the State Government. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the present writ petition. Therefore, it is dismissed. CMP No. 2360/2008 In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, this application is also dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 11th September, 2008 (sl)