IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5809 of 2008. Decided on: August 16, 2010. Usha Sen. …..Petitioner. Versus H.P. Public Service Commission & ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner: None. For the Respondents: Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. for respondents No. 2 & 3. Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel for respondent No. 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “ (i) That the note appended to Annexure:A-I, dated 31.10.98 qua the post of Ward of Freedom Fighter may be struck down being in violation of notification/letter dated 12th May, 1997 (Annexure:A-6); (ii) That the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) Class-I in the subject of Chemistry in the category of ‘Ward of Freedom Fighter’ as per Annexures: A-3, A-4 & A-5, dated 16.2.1999, 20.2.1999 & 15.3.1999, respectively; (iii) That the respondent No. 1 may be directed not to make recommendations to the respondents No. 2 & 3 against the post reserved for WFF in the subject of Chemistry; (iv) That the respondents No. 2 & 3 may be directed not to offer appointment letter in the eventuality of the recommendations having been made by the respondent 2 No. 1 to them for one post of Lecturer (College Cadre) in the subject of Chemistry in the category of WFF; (v) That the respondent No. 1 may be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant against the post reserved for WFF for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) in the subject of Chemistry; or in the alternative the respondents may be directed to re-advertise one post of Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry College Cadre or to carry forward the same strictly in compliance of Annexure:A-6, dated 12th May, 1997.” 2. It is seen from the reply filed by the first and third respondents that the petitioner had also participated in the selection process. Still further, it is seen from paragraph 6(7) that the representation of the petitioner also had been considered and the same was duly rejected. The paragraph 6(7) of the reply reads as follows: “6(7). The contents of the para is wrong and therefore, denied. The applicant applied as General category candidate on her application form and as such was provisionally admitted as General candidate for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) in the subject of Chemistry and she appeared in the screening test as a general candidate. Even at the time of screening test the applicant did not claim Ward of Freedom Fighter category in the Identity Card. But after the declaration of the result when the applicant could not quality in the screening test the result of which was declared on 30.1.1999. After knowing the result of the screening test in which the applicant could not qualify as general candidate she then submitted a representation to the Commission and claimed that she belongs to the category of Ward of Freedom Fighter and may be considered against the reserve post of Ward of Freedom Fighter. The representation of the applicant was considered and rejected for the reason that the result of screening test had since been declared and as such after the declaration of the result of screening test, no candidate is allowed to change his/her category.” 3 3. Hence, there is no merits in this writ petition. And accordingly, the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 16, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh) (karan/vs) Judge.