Judgment : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner/appellant against the judgment passed by learned writ Court on 27.11.2009 whereby the petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. The facts, in brief, may be noticed. 2. An advertisement inviting applications for filling up of some posts of Lecturers (College Cadre) in the subject of Music (Vocal) was published in the newspaper on 1.11.1994. One post of Lecturer in the subject of Music (Vocal) was reserved for ex-servicemen candidate and if suitable ex-servicemen candidates were not available, then the dependent sons/daughters of ex-servicemen were also eligible for the same. 3. It was the respondent No.3, who was selected against the post, being a ward of ex-servicemen. This appointment of respondent No.3 was assailed by the appellant by filing a writ petition on the grounds taken therein. 4. The respondents opposed the petition by filing their separate replies wherein they justified the selection of respondent No.3. 5. The learned writ Court vide a detailed judgment dismissed the petition against which the petitioner has filed the instant appeal. 6. Notably, the appellant has again raised in this appeal the same very grounds as were raised before the learned writ Court. Firstly, it was alleged that respondent No.3 was ineligible for being considered as dependent ward of ex-servicemen since the respondent No.3 was earlier employed as adhoc Lecturer Music (Vocal) and had therefore ceased to be a ‘dependent ward’ and secondly, on the ground that the father of respondent No.3 had already availed the benefit of ex-servicemen by getting re-employed as a driver against a vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen and in terms of the Rules occupying the field, on such reemployment of the ex-servicemen, his dependents were not entitled to the benefit of reservation. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully and meticulously. 7. Insofar as the first contention of the appellant that respondent No.3 ceased to be a dependent ward of an ex-servicemen in view of his being employed as adhoc Music (Vocal) Lecturer is concerned, this contention deserves to be out-rightly rejected in view of the specific clause contained in the advertisement (Annexure A-1) wherein it was clearly stipulated that the employed on adhoc/volunteer/daily wages/contract or tenure basis wards of ex-servicemen shall also be considered as dependent sons/daughters of ex-servicemen. The relevant extract of the advertisement reads thus: “If suitable Ex-servicemen candidates are not available, dependent sons/daughters of ex-servicemen will be considered for the posts reserved for ex-servicemen and if suitable dependent sons/ daughters of ex-servicemen are also not available, general candidates will be considered for these reserved posts. However, the sons/daughters of ex-servicemen who are employed on adhoc/volunteer/daily wages/ contract/tenure basis will also be considered as dependent sons/daughters of ex-servicemen. Further, if suitable OBC and handicapped (blind) candidates are not available, general candidates will be considered for the posts reserved for such category of candidates.” 8. Indisputably, the appellant/petitioner has not assailed the advertisement vide which sons/daughters of ex-servicemen serving as adhoc /contract employees were also considered to be eligible as dependent wards of ex-servicemen. It is, therefore, not open for the appellant to assail the appointment of respondent No.3 on this ground. 9. Now, coming to the second contention of the appellant to the effect that since an ex-servicemen i.e. father of the respondent No.3 had already availed of the benefit of ex-servicemen by getting employment as driver against a vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen is concerned, suffice it to say that initially in note below Rule 3 (1) of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, did provide that for the purpose of the said rule an ex-serviceman or a release army person shall cease to be so as soon as he joins the first civil employment under the State Government. However, this note was deleted by Rule 2 of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) (8th amendment), Rules, 1985. That being the position, it can safely be concluded that the father of respondent No.3 by virtue of his re-employment in the civil service did not cease to be an ex-servicemen or that the respondent No.3 never ceased to be a dependent ward of an ex-servicemen even if his father had availed the benefit of an ex-servicemen by getting employment as a driver. 10. No other point was urged. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.