ORDER :

Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that in the year 2015, respondents-State advertised 504 posts of Constables (Male) in Police Department. Aforesaid 504 vacancies were further distributed District-wise on the basis of ratio of population of District and roster points for the purpose of recruitment. Respondents advertised 38 posts of Constables(Male) for Chamba District (Annexure A-1). Out of 38 posts, one post was reserved for Home Guard. Petitioner being fully qualified, applied for the post of Constable (Male) from the Home Guard quota and was called for Physical Efficiency Test. Petitioner scored 60 marks in ground test and written test and as such, was placed at number one in the merit list of candidates (Annexure A-2), whereas, person namely, Rakesh Kumar, son of Sh. Piar Chand, who scored 58 marks, was kept at Sl. No.2 in the merit list. After circulation of aforesaid merit list of candidates, candidates as per their merit were called for Personality Test. Petitioner was awarded 6.50 marks in Personality Test, as a consequence of which, his total score came out to be 66.50 marks, whereas, person namely Rakesh Kumar, son of Sh. Piar Chand, was awarded 9 marks in Personality Test, as a result of which, his total score came to be 67 marks and he being higher in merit was offered appointment against the post of Constable reserved for Home Guard. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of Rakesh Kumar, son of Sh. Piar Chand, against the post kept reserved for the Home Guard quota, petitioner approached erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application bearing No.5436 of 2015, which is now stand transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No. 6508/2019, praying therein following main relief :-

1. “That respondents may be directed to offer appointment to the post of Constable (Male) from Chamba District under category of General Home Guard from the date other persons have been appointed, with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, arrears etc.”

2. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been raised in the instant petition, is that since petitioner stood first in overall merit, there was no occasion for Interview Committee to grant marks, if any, in the name of Personality Test. Further grievance of the petitioner is that since 3 posts were reserved for the Home Guard quota, respondents ought to have offered appointment to the petitioner being second in the merit list. Reply filed on behalf of respondents clearly reveals that though out of 38 posts, 3 posts were kept reserved for Home Guard quota, but since, two persons namely Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar were to be accommodated against two posts reserved for Home Guard, in terms of directions contained in the judgment dated 04.08.2014, passed by this Court in CWPOA No.6608 of 2010, (Annexure A-3), only one post was kept reserved for Home Guard quota, in the selection process initiated by the respondents. Careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment dated 04.08.2014, passed by this Court reveals that persons namely Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar had approached this Court against their non-selection in the selection process held during the year 2010 against 15% quota meant for the category of Home Guard. In the aforesaid proceedings, this Court while allowing the petition having been filed by persons named hereinabove, directed respondents No.1 & 2 to offer appointment to the petitioners as police constables in the respondent-department against existing vacancies, if any, latest by 31.10.2014 and in case no such vacancies are presently available, then against the first two available vacancies likely to occur in the department in near future. Since there was no existing vacancies available on 31.10.2014, respondents while initiating fresh process for selection of Constables, kept