IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12397 of 2008. Decided on: 04.01.2011. Sandeep Kumar Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. S.R. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. None for respondents No. 3 to 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Respondent No. 2 has issued an advertisement No. III/200 on 13.06.2005, whereby applications were invited for filling up the posts of Lecturers (College Cadre) in various subjects on or before 27th July, 2005. The respondent No. 2 received 81 applications. The screening test was held on 9th October, 2005. Fifteen candidates were declared successful, who had qualified the screening test. These candidates were called for interview on 30th November, and 1st December, 2005. The name of the petitioner was not recommended by the respondent No. 2 for appointment to the post of Lecturer (College Cadre). 2. Mr. S.R. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that respondent No. 2 has not taken into 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - consideration the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission. 3. Case of the respondent No. 2 is that appointments to the post in question are to be made strictly as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the recommendations have been made strictly as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the petitioner has also taken his chance on the basis of existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules; and he is estopped from filing the present petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner has, in fact, participated in the selection process and is estopped from challenging the same after he has found himself un-successful. It is for the State Government to frame the Recruitment and Promotion Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is for the respondent-State to incorporate the suggestions/recommendation made by the University Grants Commission. The recommendations made by the University Grants Commission are not binding on the State Government. In the instant case, the respondent No. 2 had associated the Head of the Department or his representative and one subject matter expert in the interview Board presided over by the Chairman or Member of the Commission nominated by the Chairman. The constitution of the selection committee is as per the Rules of Business of the Commission. The respondent No. 2 has also taken into consideration the experience possessed by the - 3 - petitioner of three years three months and seven days’ as School Lecturer in Himachal Pradesh Education Department. Petitioner has not placed before respondent No. 2 the experience certificate of one year’s teaching in a private School. Since the petitioner was lower in merit, his name could not be recommended by the respondent No. 2 to the State Government. 7. 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 January 04, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 -