Whether approved for repor ting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

(Oral)

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-4 to the extent it pertains to the appointment of respondent no.4, 5 & 6.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities not to implement Annexure P-4 to the extent it pertains to the appointment of respondent no. 4, 5 & 6.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to give appointment to the present petitioner against the post of a sub-inspector.

The facts which emerge from the pPleadings are that the respondents-State had called applications from the candidates, who desired to be appointed as Sub-Inspector and Police Constable, through the Directorate of Sainik Welfare Himachal Pradesh oat Hamirpur (Ex-Servicemen Employment Cell). The candidates were called in accordance with their seniority of registration and since the petitioner was also Ex-Servicemen, he too, applied for both the posts of Sub-Inspector and Constable. The petitioner had aCppeared in the interview conducted on 29.01.2009 and the result was declared in the month of August, 2009. The petitioner was offered the post of Police Constable in September, 2009, who joined in pursuance of the said recommendations. The respondents had prescribed the criteria for selection as evident from a perusal of check list issued before conducting the interview. The details of marks for merit were prescribed as under :-

The petitioner in the interview had scored 37 marks, as evident from the list of candidates called for the posts of Sub-Inspector and Police Constable, on the basis of education qualification of BA and abovHe (Annexure P-2), in which the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 59 (at page No. 14) and private respondents No. 4 to 6 had scored 35 marks each and their names figure at Pages No. 19 (Sr. No. 8), 25 (Sr. No. 8) antd 14 (Sr. No. 54), respectively. The petitioner came to know about the said factum after joining on the post of Constable, when he sought information under Right to Information Act, qua his having scored more marks as per the criteria fixed by the respondents, and thus happroached this Court by contending that the action on the part of the respondents, not to offer him appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector, is illegal inasmuch as the less meritorious candidates had been selected and appointed. He has sought direction to the respondents-State to offer him appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector.

The respondents filed reply to the petition. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have submitted that the posts were distributed amongst the Districts and recruitment was made by the Department on the recommendations of Recruitment Boards constituted at the Range level. The recruitment to the posts of direct Sub-Inspector has been made on the recommendations of HPSSSB against the direct quota and as per the policy of the State GovernmHent, 15% posts were reserved for Ex-Servicemen by way of horizontal reservation and the selection of Ex-Servicemen was made by the Ex- Servicemen Cell and not by the Police Department. The names of suitable Ex-Sertvicemen were sponsored by the Ex- Servicemen Employment Cell and, therefore, they were appointed by the Department after verification of their antecedents and medical examination etc.

Respondent No.3 filed separate reply and haverred that the petition is not maintainable before this Court, because respondent No.3 had received a requisition from Director General of Police, HP, vide which f