1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 16208 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.12.2011 Devi Singh, son of Sh. Khelu Ram, village Tangur, P.O Arsu, Tehsil NIrmand, District Kullu, H.P. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal pradesh through Secretary (Forests)to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.-2. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests HP Talland, Shimla. 3. The Conservator of Forests Rampur. 4. DFO, Rampur. 5. DFO HQs o/o Chief Conservator of Forests, Rampur. ..Respondents. Original Application under Section 19 of the H.P Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan,Advocate For the Respondents-State: Mr.R.M Bisht, Dy.A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly invited my attention to the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 16201 of 2008 titled as Daleep Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors decided on 14.10.2011,copy of which is taken on record, and the relevant portion is extracted herein under:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “Vide order dated 20.7.2011, the original records of the selection under challenge were ordered to be made available for perusal of the court. The same have been produced and perused by the court, as also by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s). The petitioner(s) had participated in the selection process for the post of Forest Guard, though unsuccessfully. Consequently, they obtained information under the Right to Information Act. On perusal of the same they were of the view that they have been wrongly rejected albeit the fact that they had come up to the mark. Consequently, they filed the present petitions challenging the selection process under reference. However, in replies to the petitions, the respondents annexed the records of the selection as Annexure R-IV. Since these were at variance to the information supplied to the petitioner(s)under the Right to Information Act, necessity to call for the original records of the selection process arose. On perusal of the original selection record, it is manifest that whereas copy thereof filed by the respondents with their reply as Annexure R-IV is correct, the information supplied to the petitioner(s) under the Right to Information Act, as Annexure A-2 was factually incorrect. The stand on behalf of the respondents is that the error had crept into computer generated data while arranging the list of successful candidates in alphabetical order. On comparison of Annexures A-2 and RIV with the original record the stand on behalf of the respondents is found to be correct. In view of the above, no lawful cause or basis is made out for any interference with the selection in question. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. While parting a word of caution is issued to the respondent-State to be absolutely careful in such matters while supplying information under the Right to Information Act, so as to obviate the possibility of any such error being committed in future. In view of disposal of main petitions, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 2. I notice that facts in the instant case are similar and the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. As such, present petition needs to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (Sanjay Karol),Judge. December 23,2011 (Priti)