Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 890 (HP)

Ram Pal v. State of H. P.

2011-03-04

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 18.7.1985. He was released from the Indian Army on 1st February, 2003. He got his name registered with respondent No.3 bearing No.N-18/2003, 389/2003. Respondent-State has decided to fill-up ten posts of Constable. One post became available for the category of ex-serviceman (Scheduled Tribe). 2. Mr. Yash W. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was never informed of the interview which was held on 6.10.2005. He then argued that respondent No.4 was informed of the date of interview though junior to the petitioner by way of telephonic message. 3. Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner was informed of the date of interview under postal certificate vide Annexure R-1. However, the petitioner did not appear on 6.10.2005 and in these circumstances, respondent No.4 was interviewed for the post of Constable in the category of Scheduled Tribe (Ex-serviceman). 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was enrolled with respondent No.3, as noticed above. Respondent No.4 was also enrolled himself with respondent No.3 vide No.N-19/2004, 1228/2004. The date of interview was 6th October, 2005. Petitioner was informed about the same under postal certificate, Annexure R-1 on 22nd September, 2005 to make himself available for interview on 6.10.2005. Respondent-State has placed on record Annexure R-1 whereby the petitioner was sent the letter at Sr. No.31. The petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder to these averments contained in the reply. There is a presumption that the petitioner was served. Since the petitioner has not made himself available despite receipt of letter, respondent No.4 was informed through Zila Sainik Welfare, Sirmour to appear in the interview. Thereafter his name was nominated on 12.4.2006 for the post of Constable. 6. Consequently, since the petitioner himself has not made himself available for interview, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.