IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.4558/2008 Decided on:9.8.2010 _____________________________________________ Jagat Ram Joktta …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.9. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate for respondents No.6,7,8,10,13,14 and 16. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he has got his name registered with Sub-Employment Exchange, Rampur. Respondent No.2 has sent requisition to all the District Employment Officers in Himachal Pradesh for filling up eight posts of Physical Education Teachers on 10.1.1996. Petitioner was working as Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc basis in Government Primary School, Dugyani, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 However, his name was not sponsored by respondent No.4. It has come in the reply that respondents No.1 to 3 have sent the requisition as per Annexure P-3 to all the District Employment Officers and it was incumbent upon respondent No.4 to ensure that the names of the incumbents, who were found eligible and qualified were sponsored for filling up the posts of Physical Education Teacher. The fact of the matter is that respondent No.4 has not sponsored the name of the petitioner. However, on the basis of the criteria adopted by the respondent-State, private respondents were appointed as Physical Education Teachers on 24.6.1997. We are in 2010. Since the name of the petitioner has not been sponsored by respondent No.4, no direction can be issued at this belated stage as well as due to subsequent developments to respondent No.4 to sponsor the name of the petitioner. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings against respondent No.4 for not sponsoring his name for filling up the post of Physical Education Teacher. In case the petitioner chooses to file a suit for damages etc., the limitation will not come in his way since he has been pursuing the remedy before this Court. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 9.8.2010 *awasthi*