JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is also required to be sent to the S.D. M. concerned in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Pinku Ram Versus State of H.P. and Ors., C.W.P. No. 1611 of 2007. 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that the present petition itself is not maintainable, since the petitioner is not qualified. However, since such like of matters have already been referred to the S.D.M. concerned by a Division Bench of this Court, this petition is also directed to be sent to the S.D.M. concerned for adjudication in the light of the judgment quoted hereinabove. It is made clear that while deciding the matter, the S.D.M. concerned shall also take into consideration whether the petitioner was eligible or not at the time of interview. 3. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.