IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7130 of 2008. Date of decision: 25.10.2010. Naresh Kumar ….. Petitioner. Vs. HPSEB & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: (i) The letter of appointment of respondent No. 5 to 8 annnexure PE may kindly be quashed. (ii) Or in the alternative the appointment of respondent No. 5 to 8 may kindly be quashed and the applicant may be ordered to be appointed in their place. 2. In the reply, it is stated as follows: “The replying respondents submit with utmost respect that the applicant herein was initially engaged as Daily rated Beldar on and w.e.f. 7.3.1996 and worked as such upto 25.3.1998 with certain breaks and interruptions. Thereafter the services of the applicant was dis-engaged by the replying respondents feeling aggrieved the applicant herein filed an O.A. bearing No. (M) 277/98 and pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Ld. Tribunal on 10/11/1998, the - 2 - applicant has now been re-engaged as Daily waged, Beldar w.e.f. 26.11.1998 by the replying respondent in compliance to the interim orders passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal dated 10.11.98 (Photocopy attached) as per Annexure R.A-1 and is working (P-2) as such with the replying respondents. A copy of the statement showing the presence/absence in respect of the applicant herein is placed on record as Annexure R.A. II. The applicant has not completed 240 days in any calendar year and as such has no claim for regularisation. The name of the applicant herein figures at Sr. No. (17) Seventeen as Annexure R.A.III of the seniority list of daily waged Beldar and as and when his turn falls due for regularization on the basis of seniority position and fulfillment of the R&P Regulations and also availability of the posts in the cadre with the replying respondents, the claim of the applicant shall also be considered by the replying respondents. The appointment of the respondents No. 5 to 8 as helper S/Station have been made by the replying respondents against 3% Sports Quota available under the policy of H.P. Govt. adopted in the H.P.S.E.B. vide Notification No. HPSEB (Sectt.)R&E/14-2/99-40871-41071 dated 22.7.99, a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure R.A.IV. It is incorrect to say that the applicant had been appointed under the vacancy of sports quota. Therefore, the applicant herein cannot claim parity with the respondents No. 5 to 8 as they have been appointed and recruited by the replying respondents as Helper Sub-Station (Regular) under the Sports quota in as much as they are the outstanding sportsman. Their candidature have also been considered and recommended by the H.P.S.E.B. Sports Organisation as is evident from the perusal of Annexure R.A. IV-A dated 26.2.2000.” - 3 - 3. In case the petitioner has any dispute with regard to the position as stated above, it will be open to him to approach the first respondent in which case the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent in accordance with law and justice with notice to the petitioner and the affected party within a period four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgement alongwith a copy of writ petition by the petitioner. 4. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s) if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 25, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (Hem) Judge.