IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.2207 of 2011 Decided on: April 13, 2011. Rattan Lal …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …….Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.Inder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.Bhupender Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved since he is not permitted to sit for the screening test for selection to the post of Clerk. Annexure P-2 is the advertisement. The eligibility criterion reads as follows: “Regular Class-IV employees of the Department under the Government of Himachal Pradesh possessing 10+2 qualification and completed 05 years of service including service rendered as daily wages, contract or ad hoc basis, if any, in the grade as on 15.11.2010.” 2. It is seen from the advertisement that the process is for filling up 800 posts of Clerk through limited direct recruitment of 20% from eligible regular class-IV employees. Those Class-IV employees are only of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Admittedly, the petitioner became a regular Class-IV 2 employee in Government service only in the year 2007. The contention is that prior to 2007, the petitioner had experience as Class-IV employee in the Forest Development Corporation. But the requirement mandates that the five years service should be in Government and that five years service in Government to take daily wage, contract, ad hoc etc. That will not take in the daily wage, contract or ad hoc service rendered elsewhere. Thus, the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility for being considered to the post of Clerk as per the advertisement since he became a Class-IV employee in Government service only in the year 2007. 3. It is submitted that several others, who are similarly situated, have been permitted to appear for the screening test. The learned counsel for the Service Selection Board submits that such mistakes have been noticed and steps have already been taken to withdraw their call letters. 4. There will hence be a direction to the third respondent to conduct a fool-proof processing of the applications and permit only those who are eligible as per the notification to appear in the screening test. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice April 13, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/bss) Judge.