9.3.2009 Present: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A. G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 7 & 9. CWP(T) No. 3172/2008 (OA No.781/96) The petitioner has assailed the appointment of private respondents No. 4 to 9 on the ground that the order dated 9.4.1992 passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 378/89 has not been implemented. Record perused. The State has explained that in all there were six posts of Lecturers (College Cadre). Three posts were to be filled up from the general category whereas remaining three posts were to be filled up from the reserved category. According to the roster point, two posts were reserved for the scheduled tribe category and one post for the scheduled caste category. The petitioner has sought reliance upon the letter dated 12.11.1992 purported to have been filed along with the reply (Annexure A-6) to the contempt petition being No.60/93. Based on the said letter, it is now being argued that even according to the respondents two posts were to be filled up from the scheduled caste category and not scheduled tribe category. Importantly, the contempt petition in which the reply along with the said letter was filed stands dismissed on merits, which is evident from the order dated 9.3.1995 (Annexure A-5). Letter dated 12.11.1992 itself was considered by the Tribunal in its order dated 9.3.1995, while arriving at its conclusion that there was no contempt of its earlier order dated 9.4.1992. Be that as it may be, other than the letter dated 12.11.1992, there is nothing on record from which it can remotely be inferred as to what was the roster point and for which reserved category the same fell for consideration. In this view of the matter, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 9, 2009 (rana)