__________________________________________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be al l owed t o see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No.4087 of 2011. Decided on: December 19, 2011. Komal Chand s/o Sh. Uday Ram, r/o Village Tungadhar, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. ..Petitioner. Versus 1. State of HP through Secretary (Panchayati Raj) to the Govt. of H.P. Shimla-2. 2. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Chachiot at Gohar, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P.(Chairman Selection Committee). 3. The Chairman, Panchayat Samiti Siraj, District Mandi, H.P. 4. The Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Siraj, Distt. Mandi, H.P. 5. Khube Ram, S/o Sh. Rup Chand, r/o Village Sudhrani, P.O. Panjain, Tehsil and District Mandi, H.P. 6. Roshan Lal S/o Shri Khan Singh, Village Thanwari, P.O. Ghat, District Mandi, H.P. 7. Puran Chand son of Shri Tabe ram, R/o Village Panjain, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. 8. Jayoti wife of Shri Kamal Kishore, r/o Village Pandavshila, P.O. Jarol, District Mandi, H.P. 9. Gita Devi, D/o Shri Baldev, r/o Village and PO Jhenjeli, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. ..Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ order or direction. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. - 2 - Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate, for respondents No.5 to 9. Surinder Singh, Judge (oral): By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction against the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat Sahayak, pursuant to the interview held by awarding marks of his qualification for 10+2 (Commerce) as well as on the ground of no employee from his family in Government service. 2. Insofar as the ground of no employee is concerned, the certificate in this regard is required to be filed regarding such status qua within six months prior to the interview, but in the instant case, it is more than six months, therefore, it is to be ignored and no mark can be awarded, but as for as qualification is concerned, the petitioner claims, which is also admitted by the respondents that he is 10+2 in - 3 - Commerce and had appeared for the interview. His name finds mentioned in Annexure R-1 at Serial No.434, perusal whereof shows that no marks were awarded under this head. 3. In view of the above situation, respondents are hereby directed to award the marks against this column and redraw the selection list of the respondents within a period of one month from today and in case the petitioner falls in select list, the respondents shall take appropriate steps for his appointment. 4. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 19, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge .