RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is a qualified Patwari Candidate and had passed the Patwari Test, after undergoing training, in August, 2008, is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.4, who completed and passed the said test, after undergoing training in January, 2009. So, he has approached this Court, by means of the present writ petition, for quashing the appointment of respondent No.4 as Patwari and also seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing respondents No.1 to 3 to offer the post of Patwari to him (the petitioner).

(2.) IN the year 2005, responding to an advertisement, issued by respondent No.1, petitioner applied for selection as a candidate for Patwari training against reserved category of Scheduled Caste. Respondent Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.4 also applied against the same reserved category. Petitioner was selected, while respondent No.4 was placed in Waiting List. When one of the selected candidates of Scheduled Caste reserved category did not report for training, name of respondent No.4 was included in the list of selected candidates. Training of selected candidates was held in two batches. First batch underwent training from 15th December, 2006 to 15th June, 2008. Petitioner was in this first batch. He appeared for examination held from 23rd June, 2008 to 2nd July, 2008 and passed the examination, securing 620 marks, out of 900. Respondent No.4 was imparted training in the second batch. Training commenced on 16th June, 2006 and continued upto 15th December, 2008. At the end of the training, examination was conducted. Respondent No.4 passed the examination, securing 627 marks, out of 900. Result was declared sometime in the month of January, 2009.

(3.) AFORESAID factual position is not only not conceded by respondents No.1 to 3, but is rather culled out from a combined reading of the writ petition and reply of respondents No.1 to 3.