RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Deputy Advocate General Submits that he has instructions on behalf of respondent No. 1 to adopt the reply fled by respondent No. 2, hence, the learned Deputy Advocate General is relieved of his duty to institute on behalf of respondent No. 1 a separate reply to the writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 issued a notification for filling up post of Gram Rojgar Sewak in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The eligible aspirants applied for theirs being considered for selection to the post aforesaid. The duly constituted Interviewing Committee in the interview held on 1.07.2008 selected respondent No. 3. On hers being selected, respondents No. 1 and 2 issued an appointment letter to her for hers being posted as Gram Rozgar Sewak. However, the petitioner herein challenged before the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Gram Rozgar Sewak.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to test the vigour of the submissions addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein to constrain it to interfere with the findings and conclusions recorded by the authority concerned comprised in Annexure P -4, it is necessary to extract the apposite portions of Annexure P -1 which enunciate the factum of the aspirants concerting to seek selection and appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak being enjoined to possess proficiency in computer data entry. The relevant portion of the notification comprised in Annexure P -1 reads as under: