IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2457 of 2010. Date of Decision: 30.3.2011. Deepak Sharma …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: M/s. Rajiv Rai & Malay Kaushal, Advocates. For the Respondents 1 to 4: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG. For the respondent No. 7: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Satyan Vaidya, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of lecturer, commerce (school cadre) in the sports quota. The respondents No. 6 and 7 also applied for the same post under the sports quota. Respondents No.6 and 7 were selected and this selection is under challenge in this petition. During the course of hearing, it was revealed that respondent No.6- Chandan Sharma who, though was selected against the sports quota, had also been selected under the general category and has opted to join under the general category. The learned Additional Advocate General was asked to verify this fact. 2. Today Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 26th March, 2011 : 2 : addressed to the learned Additional Advocate General by the Director of Higher Education, relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “In this regard, it is submitted that the respondent No.3 sponsored the names of 4 candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Commerce) (School Cadre) and the names of three candidates were in the waiting list. The name of the present petitioner was at serial No.1 of the said waiting list. The respondent No.6 was appointed to the post of Lecturer (Commerce) under Sports quota and accordingly he joined on 22.08.2009 thereby exhausting the post of Sports Quota. Hence, at this stage the candidates mentioned in the waiting list cannot be considered for appointment. It is however, submitted that the post vacated by the respondent No.6 is vacant which will be filled up in future.” 3. It is more than apparent that respondent No.6, though was appointed under the sports quota, but he had vacated the said post and had occupied the post under general category/quota. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Director, Higher Education that the post under the sports quota stands exhausted is totally incorrect. Once a person has opted not to join the post against the sports quota, the next person in the waiting list against the sports quota should have been selected. Keeping in view this development, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to offer the post of lecturer commerce (school cadre) vacated by respondent No.6 from the sports quota to the petitioner who admittedly is at Sr. No.1 of the waiting list of the sports quota. The needful be done latest by 30.4.2011. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 30th March, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (Krn Guleria) Judge.