IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. : 6876 of 2008. Decided on: 02.03.2010. _________________________________________________________ Prabhat Chandra Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For respondent No. 4 : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has passed diploma in Civil Engineering in the month of July, 1986. He got his name registered with the Employment Exchange. The process of filling up the post of Junior Engineer was initiated by the respondents No. 1 to 3. The names of petitioner and respondent No. 4 were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges as candidates of 1986 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. batch. Respondent No. 4 was selected since he has secured 78% marks. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the name of his client was registered in the Employment Exchange in the month of July, 1986, weightage/preference should have been given to his client vis-à-vis respondent No. 4, who has obtained diploma in the month of December, 1986 and got his name registered thereafter. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 have argued that as per Annexure R-A, the recruitment was to be done “batchwise”. In other words, their submission is that the candidates who have obtained diploma in 1986, constitute one batch. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. The method of appointment has been prescribed as per notification dated 2nd December, 1998. The State has decided to fill-up 50% posts batchwise. Petitioner has obtained diploma in the month of July, 1986 and respondent No. 4 has obtained the diploma in the month of December, 1986. Petitioner has secured 66% marks in the interview and respondent No. 4 has obtained 78% marks. Respondent No. 4 was selected and appointed. The Court is of the considered view that the expression “batchwise” has to be given common sense view. The candidates who have obtained diploma in the year, 1986, constitute “one batch”. The batch comprises of one complete calendar year. The candidates who have passed the examination in a particular year are to be treated as one unit/batch. In case preference is given to the candidates who have passed examination and got their names registered with the respective Employment Exchanges prior in time, it will amount to constituting a class within a class. This is not permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have correctly interpreted and applied the instructions by treating year 1986 in its entirety as “one batch” for the purpose of recruitment, Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 2, 2009. bhupender