IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9459 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21st May, 2010 Karam Singh and another Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioners: Mr.Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i) Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the applicant for the post of Lecturer (Commerce) against the vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen. ii) Respondents may kindly be directed to bring unto this Hon’ble Court the entire record pertaining to the appointment and the names of persons, who have been appointed as School Lecturers either against general category or against the posts reserved for ex-servicemen or against the posts reserved for wards/dependents of ex-servicemen category in the year 2001 and 2002. iii) Entire record pertaining the instant case may kindly be summoned and examined. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? iv) Any other order which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in the interest of justice. v) The Original Application may kindly be allowed with cost.” 2. It is the petitioner’s grievance that in stead of keeping the post of Lecturer (Commerce) vacant for a period of four years, the respondents have allowed such posts to be filled in by the wards of ex-serviceman. This illegal action on the part of the respondents has deprived the petitioner of his appointment as a School Lecturer. In order to substantiate his claim petitioner has furnished specific instances of one Shri Nand Lal Thakur, who was appointed in the year 2002 as a Lecturer in English in Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Samela, District Mandi. 3. Having perused the record, I am of the view that the petitioner has got no legally enforceable right of seeking appointment for the post of Lecturer (Commerce). Undisputedly there were 30 posts of Lecturer (Commerce) which were reserved for ex-servicemen. They were notified to the Ex- servicemen Employment Cell, Hamirpur. The respondent-State has placed material on record to show that an attempt was made to fill up these posts from the persons registered with the Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, but since none was available, therefore, subsequently the posts were filled up by the wards of Ex-servicemen. 4. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that as on the date when the posts were notified petitioner was not even eligible for being considered for the same. Letter dated 3.12.1999 (Annexure A-7) evidences the fact that the petitioner was to be released from the Indian Air Force only w.e.f. 1.2.2002. The posts were to be filled up only by Ex-servicemen and not the candidates, who were still in service. Hence the petitioner had no right in law for being considered for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Commerce). 5. Reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. Rajesh P.U.,Puthuvalnikathu and another, (2003) 7 SCC 285, by the petitioner is misconceived. It is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. It cannot be said that petitioner had the legitimate expectation of getting public appointment during the course of his public employment. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 21st May, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.