IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.6275 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.12.2010 ------------------------------------------------- Ram Krishan Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. V.K.Ahuja,J. (Oral): The petitioner filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 as Part Time Class-IV employee. The petitioner has claimed that he had applied for the post of Part Time Sweeper with respondent No. 2 and accordingly interview letter was sent to him and he appeared in the interview but respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Class- IV employee. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 2. In the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, they pleaded that the post advertised was Class-IV and the applicant did not fulfil the minimum qualification for the post of Class-IV employee as per the Government Policy. The petitioner had attached the interview letter received by him on 27.10.1999 (Annexure A-1), which shows that the post was of Part Time Class-IV Sweeper/Class-IV. Accordingly, he appeared in the interview. A perusal of the record now produced from the office of District Ayurvedic Officer shows that the post filled by the department was the post of Class-IV employee at Materni, for which place, interview was held. A perusal of the record also shows that the vacancy was for the post of Part Time Class-IV at Materni and not for the post of Part Time Class-IV Sweeper. 3. According to the eligibility qualifications for the post of Class-IV, the essential requirement was that a candidate should be primary pass, whereas for Part Time Sweeper, it was illiterate and there was no such condition that he should be primary pass. Thus, from the perusal of the record, it is clear that the post sought to be filled and actually filled was for the post of Class-IV. The petitioner admitted that he is not primary pass and as such, was not eligible to be appointed accordingly. Respondent No. 3 has already been in service from the last 11 years and may have been confirmed also in accordance with the rules. Now the question which arises for consideration is that the order passed by this Court that the petitioner is liable to bear the expenses for the record now sought to be summoned from the office of District Ayurvedic Officer, Solan. It 3 has been pointed out that earlier also a direction was given to the respondent department on 24.10.2006 by the Erstwhile Tribunal to produce the said record, which was also produced and, therefore, the petitioner prayed that he is not to be burdened with cost for summoning of the witness from the office of District Ayurvedic Officer alongwith record. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has applied for the post of Part Time Sweeper and has not been recruited so far, I am of the opinion that no cost could be imposed upon the petitioner for summoning of the witness with record. 4. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, since he was not eligible for the said post and respondent No. 3 was rightly appointed and as such, the petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any. Record seen and returned to the official from the office of District Ayurvedic Officer, Solan, who has brought the same. December 16, 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge