1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3399 of 2010. Decided on: 8.7.2010. Suraj Bhan . ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): Writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: (i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent No.1 to decide the representation Annexure P-6 in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1995, S.C. 1371 and in case titled Union of India & others vs. Bir Pal Singh Chauhan in Civil Appeal No.9272 of 1995. (ii) that writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner against one post of Sub Inspector reserved for wards of Freedom Fighter since the petitioner 2 secured 146 marks and the respondent No.4 on his own merit falls in the General category in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1995, SC. 1371 and in case titled Union of India & others vs. Bir Pal Singh Chauhan in Civil Appeal No.9272 of 1995. (iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider respondent No.4 in General category who has secured 176 marks since the candidate who has secured 167 marks i.e. Sh. Ankush Dogra has already been considered in General category, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1995, SC. 1371 and in case titled Union of India & others vs. Bir Pal Singh Chauhan in Civil Appeal No.9272 of 1995. (iv) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and action of the respondent department may be quashed and set aside whereby the respondent department has wrongly selected respondent No.4 against one reserved post of Sub Inspector for wards of Freedom Fighter in violation of the ratio/instruction laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has already made representation Annexure P-6 before first respondent which is still pending. There will be a direction to first respondent to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice, adverting to the contentions made by the petitioner in 3 Annexure P-6, with notice to the petitioner and 4th respondent. This shall be done within two months from the date of production of the copy of the judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before first respondent. The petitioner shall also supply the copy of the judgment alongwith writ petition to 4th respondent. It is open to the parties to take all contentions available before first respondent. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications. Copy Dasti ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. ( Kuldip Singh), Judge. July 8 2010 (sks/grs)