- (1.)Vide Recruitment Notice dated 28th February, 2010 (Annexure P-6), respondents invited application from the candidates (male and female) for filling up 1309 posts of constables in 12 Districts of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner being ST candidate applied against one post belonging to ST category, falling in the share of Bilaspur District. The petitioner qualified the written as well as ground test and was called for an interview vide letter dated 21.9.2010, as is evident from Annexure P-8. Alongwith other six candidates, petitioner appeared for the interview, but fact remains that he was not selected, rather respondent No.6, namely, Sh. Rakesh Kumar was selected.
(2.)Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of respondent No.6, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following reliefs:-
"(i) That the respondent No.1 to 3 may be directed to place on record the appointment letter issued to the respondent No.6 on the basis of final result and same may be quashed and set-aside.

(ii) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to constitute a separate interview board for interviewing the candidates under ST/UR category.

(iii) That respondent No.1 to 3 may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment him as Constable under Scheduled Tribe i.e. (ST/UR) category in the 6th Battalion."

(3.)Precisely, the allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 was less meritorious than him, but since his father Sh. Dandu Ram was serving as Sub Inspector in the police Department at the relevant time, he has been unduly favoured by the Interview Board while awarding marks in the interview and as such, his selection deserves to be quashed.
;