IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2255 of 2009. Decided on: 6.7.2009. __________________________________________________ Jasbir Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. .… Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 & 6 : Mr. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate Generals. For Respondent No.5 & 6 : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the subject of Commerce by the Parent Teachers Association. The Committee constituted by the State Government has enquired whether the appointment of the petitioner was in conformity with law or not? Mr. Som Lal Dhiman, Principal has deposed before the Committee that no proper advertisement of the vacancy has been made as per the record and only a copy of the notice was available on the record on the basis of which the interview was held on 31.8.2006. The petitioner was the only candidate who was interviewed on 31.8.2006. According to the Principal, there was no interview sheet available. It was necessary even as per the old 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 policy framed by the State Government to give adequate publicity by the Parent Teachers Association. It could have ensured more meritorious candidates being considered for the post. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma has argued that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of policy circulated in the year 2006 by the State Government. He further contended that the selection of the petitioner could not be assailed/challenged on the basis of the policy/guidelines issued on 27.5.2008. There is no merit in the submissions of Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma. In earlier policy also the post was required to be given wider publicity to enable all the eligible candidates to apply. The petitioner has assailed the recommendations made by the Committee before the deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties and going through the record has affirmed the findings of the Committee. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is self contained. Appointment of the petitioner was in violation of the norms prescribed and the findings recorded by the Committee are affirmed. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. In view of the disposal of the main petition, the application pending, if any, stands disposed of. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 6, 2009. (cr) 3