THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10942 /2008. and CWP(T) No. 10943/2008 Decided on: 24.11.2009 1. CWP(T) No. 10942/2008 Sukhbir Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus C.S.K. Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya and others. .....Respondents. 2. CWP No. 10943/2008 Pankaj Kumar. ....Petitioner. Versus C.S.K. Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya and others. ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma Advocate. (in both the petitions) For the respondent : Mr. Dinesh thakur, Advocate vice (in both the petitions.) Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 2 to 3. ________________________________________________________________________ Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. The petitioners have sought quashing of final selection list of Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course pursuant to advertisement annexure A-2. Initially, the State Government had decided to fill up 525 seats for two years Veterinary Pharmacist Training course. However, later on, the respondents decided to fill up 136 additional seats. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents to fill up 136 additional seats of Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course is illegal and arbitrary. According to him, these posts were to be advertised. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the decision to increase the seats was taken after due consideration since new Veterinary Institutions were notified in the month of January, 2004 by the Government. He then argued that corresponding number of posts of Veterinary Pharmacists were created for smooth functioning of the dispensaries by the State Government. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioners have appeared in the written examination and were interviewed. They have not been found suitable. It is true that initially 525 seats were to be filled up. However, the respondents too a conscious decision to increase the same after new Veterinary Institutions were opened and corresponding number of posts were created by the State Government. The petitioners have only right to be considered for the Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. They were permitted to sit in the written examination and were not found suitable. It was clearly mentioned in the advertisement Annexure A-2 that the seats could be increased for decreased. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra) Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 24.11.2009 *awasthi*