CWP(T) No. 6915 of 2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. S. S. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dev Raj Dev, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 and 6. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner’s application for selection for the post of Vidya Upasak was not signed by the petitioner. 2. In similar circumstances the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 19 of 2005, titled as Kamal Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 18.4.2005 has passed the following order:- “The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned State Administrative Tribunal dated September 9, 2004 whereby his Original Application, for the reliefs sought for therein, has been rejected by a very short order. However, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General and also perused the reply filed by respondent No. 2 HP Subordinate Service Selection Board before this Court. From the perusal of the reply, we find that the application filed by the petitioner for the post of Vidya Upasak, was not complete in all respects in as much as he had not signed the application seeking appointment to the post. Therefore, his candidature for the post of Vidya Upasak, was rightly rejected by the competent authority. We find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed as the petitioner has not shown any infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders of the learned Administrative Tribunal warranting -2- interference in exercise of the judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.” Copy of order is taken on record. 3. In view of the aforesaid it cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. Hence the present petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 17, 2010 (PK)