IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5145 of 2008. Date of decision: 23.9.2010. Karam Chand Sharma …..Petitioner. Vs. H.P. Public Service Commission & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. D.K.Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No. 2. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has prayed for quashing of appointment of respondent No. 3 as Instructor (Motor Mechanic) with a direction to respondent No. 1 to appoint petitioner as Instructor (Motor Mechanic). 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 had advertised the vacancy for recruitment to the post of Instructor (Motor Mechanic) Class III in the department of Technical Education, Himachal Pradesh. The further case of petitioner is that he is qualified and eligible for appointment as Instructor (Motor Mechanic). He applied in response to the advertisement and appeared before the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Interview Board on 5.5.1998. The petitioner had submitted all the documents. The petitioner was surprised to know that respondent No. 1 had selected respondent No. 3 ignoring the claim of the petitioner as the petitioner had no political back. The petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 on the ground that he had 16 years experience as Motor Mechanic and is more meritorious. The petitioner is more brilliant than respondent No. 3. The appointment of respondent No. 3 is illegal and wrong. The respondent No. 3 has been appointed ignoring rules and regulation on the basis of favouritism. The respondent No. 3 has less experience. The respondent No. 1 had allowed only five minutes time for personal interview and within that time suitability and knowledge of the petitioner could not be judged and the appointment of respondent No. 3 has been made in colourable exercise of jurisdiction vested in respondent No.1. The selection has been made only on the basis of viva-voce and no trade/ written test was conducted. 3. The respondent No. 1 has filed the reply and took preliminary objection that petitioner had appeared in the interview but could not qualify the same, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection process after having appeared and failed in the interview. It has also been submitted that the petitioner secured 49.88 marks in Matric, 70.76% in NTC and 71.06% in ATI/CTI, whereas the respondent No. 3 secured 65.05% in Matric, 80% in NTC and 84.75% in ATI/CTI, which clearly shows that respondent No. 3 is more meritorious than the petitioner. In addition to academic achievements, other factors such as general awareness, personality, …3… articulation, aptitude and knowledge of subject etc. were also considered. The respondent No. 3 was selected on the basis of his performance in interview, whereas petitioner was not selected. The Interview Board took as much time as was enough to adjudged the suitability of every candidate, who appeared for interview. The selection of respondent No. 3 was made on the basis of his over all assessment. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in which he denied the stand of respondent No. 1 and reiterated his stand taken by him in the petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had applied for the post of Instructor (Motor Mechanic) in response to advertisement. He appeared before the Interview Board, but was not selected rather respondent No. 3 was selected and appointed. The petitioner on his self estimation has projected himself to be more meritorious in comparison to respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 in its reply has given comparative academic achievements of petitioner and respondent No. 3, which shows that respondent No. 3 has edge over the petitioner in academics. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 was not eligible for appointment as per advertisement as well as rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was given only five minutes by the Interview Board and within that time his suitability for the post could not be assessed properly. The petitioner has stated nothing about the performance of respondent No. 3 before the Interview Board. The petitioner has levelled bald allegations that only because of favouritism and in colourable exercise of power the respondent No. 3 …4… has been selected, which has not been established. There is no reason to disbelieve the stand of respondent No. 1 that selection of respondent No. 3 has been made on the basis of his overall performance in the interview alongwith his academic record. No violation of rules has been demonstrated. The petitioner without any protest accepted the selection criteria of respondent on the basis of interview and participated in the interview. Now after participating in the interview, he is not permitted to find fault that selection on the basis of interview only is bad. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 was allowed to join as Instructor (Motor Mechanic) in the year 1998. The petition was filed in July 1998. As per the affidavit dated 26.6.1998 filed by the petitioner in support of the petition as of today the petitioner is about 53 years. This is an additional ground that no purpose will be served in so far petitioner is concerned in allowing the petition, even though, it has come on record that respondent No. 3 was selected and appointed as Instructor (Motor Mechanic) on merit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. September 23, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.