IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2943 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Ashwani Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent of non consideration of his case for being selected as a Mali. Prior to institution of present Writ Petition, the petitioner had instituted OA No. 1776 of 2000, challenging his termination. On consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal ordered: “Rejoinder not filed. The applicant has not completed 240 days as per reply filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General have no objection if this 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 OA is heard in single bench. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this OA can be disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to consider the applicant on the basis of his seniority alongwith others, as and when fresh appointment are made in the said Forest Division. The learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this proposition. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant for employment as on the basis of his seniority as and when fresh appointments are made in this Forest Division. With these observations and directions the OA stands disposed of.” Petitioner now submits that despite this direction having been issued by the Tribunal, his case has not been considered. In reply filed by the respondent, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered, but he did not possess requisite educational qualification i.e. Middle pass and the petitioner had only passed seventh standard. 2. Without going into this controversy further, this Writ Petition is disposed with direction that the state shall consider the case of the petitioner and:- (a) consider relaxation in the educational qualification of the petitioner, if so permissible by rules. (b) it shall consider the fact that prior to termination of petitioner, he had served for 240 days as Mali. Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. May 19, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge 3