JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22nd October, 2014, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 7229 of 2010, whereby the petition having been filed by the respondent-petitioner (for short petitioner) came to be allowed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that on the requisition having been made by the respondent department of Education, H.P. Public Service Commission (for short ‘Commission’) issued advertisement No. X/2007 (Annexure P-4) for filling up 90 posts of Lecturers (College Cadre) in Commerce, wherein two posts were reserved for persons with disability in orthopaedical. However, fact remains that against aforesaid two posts reserved for orthopaedical, only one candidate was selected and accordingly he was appointed against one post reserved for ortho. Since, one post reserved for ortho handicapped remained unfilled, Commission again issued advertisement No. X/2008 in the year, 2008. 3. Perusal of aforesaid advertisement (Annexure P-5) suggests that post of Lecturer in Commerce reserved for ortho handicapped was a regular post in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- and the petitioner being fully eligible and qualified, applied for the post in question within the stipulated period. Perusal of Annexure P-6, placed on record by the petitioner suggests that the Commission issued her call letter to appear in the interview on 30th July, 2009 for the post of Lecturer (College cadre) in Commerce in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- reserved for physically handicapped persons being backlog post. Vide press note (Annexure P-7) issued by the respondent-Commission, two candidates including the petitioner were declared successful and recommended for appointment to the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) in Commerce on regular basis against the post reserved for physically handicapped persons. Since, the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) in Commerce against the post reserved for physically handicapped person in ortho, she became entitled to be considered for appointment as Lecturer on regular basis after having been recommended for appointment by the respondent-commission. 4. But in the instant case, respondent vide notification (Annexure P-8), dated 5.6.2010 appointed the petitioner on contract basis against the post of Lecturer in Commerce (College Cadre). The petitioner joined her duties on 11.6.2010 under protest and represented the matter to respondent No. 1 on 29.6.2010 vide representation (Annexure P-9). 4. But in the instant case, respondent vide notification (Annexure P-8), dated 5.6.2010 appointed the petitioner on contract basis against the post of Lecturer in Commerce (College Cadre). The petitioner joined her duties on 11.6.2010 under protest and represented the matter to respondent No. 1 on 29.6.2010 vide representation (Annexure P-9). Since, no action, whatsoever, was taken on the aforesaid representation having been filed by the petitioner, she was compelled to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 7229 of 2010, seeking therein following main relief:- 1. That notification dated 5.6.2010 at Annexure P-8 to the extent the petitioner has been given appointment on contract basis instead of giving her regular appointment as Lecturer in Commerce (College Cadre), may very kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent No. 1 may further be directed to give her appointment on regular basis as recommended by the respondent commission at Annexure P-7 w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits.” 5. Learned Single Judge after having carefully perused the pleadings as well as documents annexed therewith found merit in the petition of the petitioner and accordingly allowed the same vide judgment dated 22nd October, 2014. The learned Single Judge while allowing the petition of the petitioner held that “words appointment on contract basis as per contractual amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month mentioned in the Notification No. EDN-A-B (1)18/2009, dated 5.6.2010 is illegal and same is ordered to be deleted and quashed with immediate effect and words regular appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- is ordered to be incorporated qua petitioner only with immediate effect in the Notification, as referred hereinabove. Learned Single Judge also held the petitioner entitled for all consequential monetary benefits in accordance with law. 6. In the aforesaid background, appellant-respondent has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for setting-aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General, representing the appellant, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge vehemently argued that the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record by the appellant-respondent in support of their decision to offer appointment to the petitioner on contract basis. Learned Advocate General further contented that there is provision of contract appointment in the R & P Rules and all appointments in the State has been made on contract basis after inserting this provision in the R&P Rules and as such, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Education department, whereby appointment has been offered to the petitioner on contract basis. Learned Advocate General further contended that learned Single Judge while upholding the claim of the petitioner failed to appreciate that many appointments of Lecturers (College Cadre) have been made on contract before the appointment of the petitioner and it would be not fair to appoint junior on regular basis and seniors on contract basis. In the aforesaid background, learned Advocate General prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge be set-aside after accepting the instant appeal having been preferred by the appellant-respondent. 8. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and stated that bare perusal of the impugned judgment suggest that there is no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, same deserve to be upheld. While inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Sharma, strenuously argued that learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent ought to have offered appointment to the petitioner on regular basis, especially when she had applied for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) in Commerce against a regular post. To substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Sharma, invited attention of this Court to Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7 annexed with the writ petition to demonstrate that post in question was backlog post and it was intended to be filled on regular basis by the respondent department. 9. We have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. Sharma, invited attention of this Court to Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7 annexed with the writ petition to demonstrate that post in question was backlog post and it was intended to be filled on regular basis by the respondent department. 9. We have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties viz-a-viz impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court deems it fit to take note of preliminary submissions having been made by respondent No. 2-Commission in its reply filed in the writ petition, relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:- “That the replying respondent advertised 73 (backlog) posts of Lecturer (College Cadre) reserved for persons with disabilities including 06 posts i.e. (03 for visually impaired, 02 for deaf and & Dumb & 01 post for Ortho. (Handicapped) of Lecturer (College Cadre) Commerce, in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- vide advertisement at Annexure P- 5 to CWP. In response thereto 09 applications were received by the Commission. On scrutiny 06 candidates were provisionally admitted including petitioner and were called for interview on dated 30.07.2009 & 31.07.2009. Based on the performance of candidate before the Interview Board, the Petitioner alongwith others were recommended for appointment by the respondent Commission to the Secretary (Higher Education) as Lecturer (College Cadre) in Commerce vide letter dated 15.09.2009 (Annexure R-2/1) in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-.” 11. It is apparently clear from the aforesaid reply having been filed by the respondent-Commission that 73 (backlog) posts of Lecturer (College Cadre) reserved for persons with disabilities including 06 posts i.e. (03 for visually impaired, 02 for Deaf and Dumb & 01 post for Ortho. Handicapped) of Lecturer (College Cadre) Commerce, in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- were advertised vide Notification No. X/2008, (Annexure P-5), dated 04.12.2008. It also emerge from the aforesaid reply that 6 candidates including the petitioner were called for interview on 30.07.2009 and 31.07.2009 and based upon the performance of the candidate before the interview Board, the petitioner alongwith others were recommended for appointment by the respondent Commission to the Secretary (Higher Education) as Lecturer (College Cadre) in Commerce vide letter (Annexure R-2/A), dated 15.09.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. 12. 8000-13500/-. 12. It is also apt to reproduce recommendation made by the respondent-Commission herein below:- Confidential No. 3-33/2007-PSC(R-1)22429 Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Dated: September 2009 From The Secretary, H.P. Public Service Commission, Shimla-171002 To, The Principal Secretary (Higher Education) to Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2 Subject: Recommendation for the posts of Lecturer (College Cadre) in Commerce Class-I (Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- in the Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letters No. EDN-A Kha (6)-24/2006 dated 05.10.2007 and even number of dated 02.11.2007 vide which 773 posts of Lecturer College Cadre in different subjects were requisitioned which were later on withdrawn vide your letter No. EDN-(A)-B(1)-7/2006, dated 07.03.2008 except the 92 post reserved for disabled persons in various subjects. Out of 92 posts only 18 candidates in different subjects could be recommended vide this office recommendation letter of even no dated 06.06.2008. It is further, stated that requisition for filling up of one post of Lecturer Bio-Tech reserved for Blind person was withdrawn later on vide your letter No. EDNA (B)B(1)-7/2006, dated 01.09.2008. Therefore, remaining 73 posts reserved for disabled persons in various subjects of Lecturer College Cadre were advertised vide Advertisement No. X/2008 dated 4.12.2008. In which 06 posts (Blind=03, Deaf and Dumb=02 and Ortho Handicapped=01) of Lecturer College Cadre in Commerce subject were also advertised. The candidates belonging to physically handicapped categories of Lecturer Commerce were called for interview on 31.07.2009. On the basis of their performance before the interview Board, the Commission recommends the name of following candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of Lecturers (College Cadre) Class-I (Gazetted) reserved for persons with disabilities in the subjects Commerce as under:- S. No. Roll No. Name and Address of the candidates Category 1. xxx xxx xxx 2. 03 Ms. Ruchy Sharma D/o Sh. S.K. Sharma C/o Kumar Traders, Talwara Road, Daulatpur Chowk, District Una (H.P.) Pin-177204 Ortho handicapped 3. xxx xxx xxx 2. The applications of the candidates on the prescribed form along with the relevant documents including the attestation forms are enclosed for being retained by you in the personal files of the concerned candidates. 3. The offer of appointment may please be given to the candidates after verifying/checking their credentials/documents and completing all other codal formalities to the satisfaction of appointing authority. 4. 3. The offer of appointment may please be given to the candidates after verifying/checking their credentials/documents and completing all other codal formalities to the satisfaction of appointing authority. 4. Pay of the above mentioned recommended candidates may be fixed as per rules. 5. The annual assessment reports on the working of the candidates for a period of two years from the date of assuming their duties in the department may also be sent to this office for being placed before the Commission. 6. The candidates for remaining unfilled 03 posts (Blind/Visually impaired-02 and Hearing Impaired-01) could not be filled up due to non available of the candidates. These posts shall be re-advertised after a period of six months. Encls: As above. Yours faithfully Sd/- Secretary H.P. Public Service Commission. 13. After having carefully perused the aforesaid reply as well as letter placed on record by the respondent-Commission, there cannot be any dispute that post in question (Lecturer college Cadre in Commerce) was backlog post and petitioner, who happened to be a ortho handicapped was recommended by the respondent commission to be appointed as Lecturer (college Cadre) in the subject of Commerce in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. But, interestingly in the instant case, respondent department instead of offering regular appointment to the petitioner in terms of aforesaid recommendation made by the Commission, appointed her as a Lecturer (College Cadre) in the subject of Commerce on contract basis on consolidated salary of Rs. 12000/- per month, which offer was admittedly accepted by the petitioner under protest. It is also admitted case of the appellant-respondent that requisition was sent to the Commission for filling up 742 posts of Lecturer in collage cadre, wherein 92 posts were reserved for persons having disability. It also emerge from the reply that during the year, 2008, Government withdrew the aforesaid requisition from the Commission except 92 posts reserved for the disabled person. Thereafter, respondent again sent requisition for filling up 633 posts of lecturers in colleges on contract basis and accordingly these posts were advertised by the Commission. 14. It also emerge from the reply that during the year, 2008, Government withdrew the aforesaid requisition from the Commission except 92 posts reserved for the disabled person. Thereafter, respondent again sent requisition for filling up 633 posts of lecturers in colleges on contract basis and accordingly these posts were advertised by the Commission. 14. In nutshell, the case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that before offering appointment to handicapped candidates pursuant to the recommendation having been made by the respondent-Commission, Education department had already offered appointments to number of candidates as lecturer in various subjects on contract basis in college and as such, if regular appointment was given to handicapped persons, they would have become Senior to the persons, who were already offered appointment on ad hoc basis prior to the petitioner. Respondent also pleaded before the learned Single Judge that to avoid such conflict, it was decided administratively to offer the appointment to the handicapped persons/candidates on contract basis. 15. This Court, after having gone through the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties as well as impugned judgment, sees no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, rather this Court is convinced and satisfied that learned Single Judge after having carefully perused the record has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be offered appointment on contract basis in the teeth of her selection made by the Commission on regular basis. 16. It is quite evident from the record that the Commission had advertised 73 posts for disabled persons, out of which 32 posts were reserved for blind persons , 30 posts were reserved for deaf and dumb persons and 11 posts were reserved for Ortho handicapped persons for different subjects. Petitioner namely Ms. Ruchy Sharma applied for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) in the subject of commerce in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- against the post reserved for Ortho handicapped. The Commission recommended the name of petitioner for the post of lecturer college cadre in commerce subject in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 and as such, there was no occasion for the respondent Education department to offer her appointment on contract basis. Once, the Commission had recommended Education Department to offer appointment to the petitioner for the post of lecturer college cadre in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 and as such, there was no occasion for the respondent Education department to offer her appointment on contract basis. Once, the Commission had recommended Education Department to offer appointment to the petitioner for the post of lecturer college cadre in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500, there was no occasion whatsoever, for the Education Department to appoint the petitioner on contract basis that too on consolidated salary of Rs. 12000/- per month. 17. Otherwise also, explanation having been rendered by the respondent for offering appointment to the petitioner on contact basis is totally baseless because admittedly petitioner was interviewed against the post intended to be filled up by the Education Department on regular basis and by no stretch of imagination persons appointed to a post on ad hoc basis can be held to be senior to a person, who is/was admittedly appointed against regular post. 18. It is well settled law that person appointed to a post on ad hoc basis does not have any lien on the post, rather it has been repeatedly held by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that person appointed to a post on ad hoc basis should be replaced as expeditiously as possible by direct recruits because admittedly persons working on ad hoc basis have to give place to regular appointee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Director Institute of Management Development U.P. vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070 ; has categorically held that appointment on contractual basis is only for a limited period and after expiry of period of contact post comes to an end. The relevant paras-20 and 23 of the judgment is reproduced herein-below:- “20. Because the six months’ period was coming to an end on 28th February, 1991, she preferred the writ petition a few days before and prayed for mandamus which was granted by the learned judge under the impugned judgment. The question is whether the directions are valid in law. To our mind, it is clear that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the respondent could have no right to continue in the post. The question is whether the directions are valid in law. To our mind, it is clear that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the respondent could have no right to continue in the post. Once this conclusion is arrived at, what requires to be examined is, in view of the services of the respondent being continued from time to time on ‘ad hoc’ basis for more than a year whether she is entitled to regularization? The answer should be in the negative. However, reliance is placed by learned counsel on behalf of the respondent on the case in Jacob vs. Kerala Water Authority, 1990 (1) Supp. SCR 562 : AIR 1990 SC 228. 22. In dealing with this, at page 577 (of 1990 (1) Supp. SCR 562): (at p. 2238 of AIR 1990 SC 2228 ), The Court observed: If any person who does not possess the requisite qualifications is appointed under the said clause, he will be liable to be replaced by a qualified person. Clauses (iii) of Rule 9 states that a person appointed under clause (i) shall, as soon as possible, be replaced by a member of the service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the post. Clause (e) of Rule 9, however, provided for regularization of service of any person appointed under clause (i) of sub-rule (a) if he had completed continuous service of two years on December 22, 1973, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules. This is a clear indication that in the past the Government also considered it just and fair to regularize the service of those who had been in continuous service for two years period to the cut-off date. The spirit underlying this treatment clearly shows that the Government did not consider it just, fair or reasonable to terminate the services of those who were in employment for a period of two or more years period to the cut-off date. This approach is quite consistent with the spirit of the rule which was intended to be invoked to serve emergent situations which could not brook delay. Such appointments were intended to be stop-gap temporary appointments to serve the stated purpose and not long term ones. This approach is quite consistent with the spirit of the rule which was intended to be invoked to serve emergent situations which could not brook delay. Such appointments were intended to be stop-gap temporary appointments to serve the stated purpose and not long term ones. The rule was not intended to fill large number of posts in the service but only those which could not be kept vacant till regular appointments were made in accordance with the rules. But once the appointment continued for long, the services had to be regularised if the incumbent possessed the requisite qualifications as was done by sub-rule (e). Such an approach alone would be consistent with the constitutional philosophy adverted to earlier. Even otherwise, the rule must be so interpreted, if the language of the rule permits, as will advance this philosophy of the Constitution. If the rule is so interpreted it seems clear to us that employees who have been working on the establishment since long, and who possess the requisite qualifications for the job as obtaining on the date of their employment, must be allowed to continue on their jobs and their services should be regularised." 23. In the instant case, there is no such rule. The appointment was purely ad hoc and on a contractual basis for a limited period. Therefore, by expiry of the period of six months, the right to remain in the post comes to an end.” 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Y.H. Pawar vs. State of Karnataka and Another, AIR 1996 SC 3194 ; also held that Seniority is to be determined with effect from the date on which the employee is regularized. The relevant paras No. 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment are reproduced herein-below:- 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 , where appointment was made on regular basis, the seniority was required to be determined with effect from the initial date of appointment. We find no force in the contentions. As seen, the appointments are made on ad hoc basis without conducting any competitive examination. As and when vacancy had arisen local candidates were called from Employment Exchange and were appointed. We find no force in the contentions. As seen, the appointments are made on ad hoc basis without conducting any competitive examination. As and when vacancy had arisen local candidates were called from Employment Exchange and were appointed. Therefore, the appointments cannot be considered to have been made on regular basis. When the Rules came to be made, all the appointments are sought to be regularized. The sanction given by the Government for such an appointment is only to enable the candidates to continue till the statutory Rules are made to regularize the services. 6. This Court in Excise Commissioner Karnataka and Another vs. V. Sreekanta, (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 53, in similar circumstances had considered the effect of such an appointment in paragraph 14 which reads thus: "After giving our anxious consideration to the respective contention of the parties it appears to us that the writ petitioner/ respondent, Sri V. Sreekanta, was appointed as a local candidate through Employment Exchange in view of the specific sanction of the government for such ad hoc appointment. The terms of appointment in the context of sanction of the said posts by the Government, in our view, clearly demonstrates that such appointment of the said respondent and other employees in 1968 was ad hoc appointment given to local candidates being sponsored by the local Employment Exchange. It was only on October 26, 1971, the said respondent became eligible to be recruited in the said Class III post, and such appointment or regularization of his ad hoc appointment was made possible because of the framing of the said Special Rules of Recruitment in 1970. In our view, Mr. Narasimha Murthy is justified in his submission that the respondent was not entitled to claim seniority from the date of his initial appointment on ad hoc basis but he was only entitled to claim seniority from the date of his subsequent appointment or regularization under the said Special Rules of Recruitment in 1970. In our view, Mr. Narasimha Murthy is justified in his submission that the respondent was not entitled to claim seniority from the date of his initial appointment on ad hoc basis but he was only entitled to claim seniority from the date of his subsequent appointment or regularization under the said Special Rules of Recruitment in 1970. It appears to us that under Rule 3 of the said Special Rules of Recruitment of 1970, the respondent, having possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed be the said Special Rules of Recruitment for recruitment to Class III posts and the said respondent having been appointed on or after January 1, 1965 as a local candidate to a Class III post and having put in a continuous service of one year prior to October 1, 1970, was eligible to be appointed under the said Special Rules of Recruitment and the respondent was given such appointment with effect from October 26, 1971 under the said Special Rules of Recruitment of 1970. The said respondent was entitled to be treated as direct recruit properly made under the said Special Rules of 1970 only from October 26, 1971 and the service rendered by him prior to the said date was only on the basis of ad hoc employment not made in accordance with the rules of recruitment. In the aforesaid circumstances, the decision of the division Bench of the Karnataka High Court appears to be clearly erroneous and we have no hesitation in setting aside the same. Learned Single Bench of the Karnataka High Court, in our view, has rightly dismissed the writ petition and we affirm the said decision. The appeal is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs." 7. In that view of the matter, we hold that the appointment of the appellant is only an ad hoc appointment. Accordingly, his seniority is to be determined with effect from the date on which the statutory Rules came into force. 20. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the petitioner was offered to be appointed to the post of lecturer college cadre in commerce in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- and as such, action of respondent in appointing the petitioner on contract basis was rightly held illegal by the learned Single Judge. 21. 20. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the petitioner was offered to be appointed to the post of lecturer college cadre in commerce in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- and as such, action of respondent in appointing the petitioner on contract basis was rightly held illegal by the learned Single Judge. 21. Similarly, this Court is fully in agreement with the findings returned by the learned Single Judge that the selection of the petitioner made pursuant to advertisement issued by the Education Department could not be scattered by administrative decision, if any, taken by the respondent Education department because admittedly administrative decision taken in the instant case, is contrary to the advertisement notice as well as recommendation of the Commission. This is none of the case of the appellant-respondent that advertisement issued for regular appointment of lecturer in commerce was ever withdrawn qua handicapped persons by the Commission by way of subsequent advertisement, if any, and as such, petitioner was rightly interviewed by the Commission against the post of lecturer college cadre in commerce against the quota of handicapped ortho. 22. During the pendency of the present LPA, this Court vide order dated 27.4.2016 reserved liberty to the appellant-respondent to file supplementary affidavit indicating therein “whether the post against which the writ petitioner was appointed, was a backlog post?” The appellant-respondent by way of supplementary affidavit dated 30th August, 2016 stated that as per information conveyed by the State Government vide letter dated 10.8.2016, the post against which petitioner Ms. Ruchy Sharma, Assistant Professor, has been appointed, was not a backlog post. But, after having carefully perused the other documents available on record especially replies having been filed by the respondent-State as well as Commission, we are afraid that the aforesaid contention made by the Director Higher Education of H.P. is correct. The Commission vide advertisement No. X/2007, dated 24.11.2007, specifically advertised two posts for physically handicapped ortho, which were backlog posts. 23. Leaving everything aside, it is ample clear from Annexure P-6 i.e. interview letter sent to the petitioner that post of lecturer (College cadre) in commerce, Class-I (Gazetted) was a backlog post reserved for physically handicapped persons of H.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 23. Leaving everything aside, it is ample clear from Annexure P-6 i.e. interview letter sent to the petitioner that post of lecturer (College cadre) in commerce, Class-I (Gazetted) was a backlog post reserved for physically handicapped persons of H.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- in the Department of Higher Education, H.P. It would be profitable to reproduce Annexure P-6 issued by the H.P. Public Service Commission herein:- From The Secretary, H.P. Public Service Commission. To, Mrs. Ruchy Sharma D/o Late Sh. S.K. Sharma, C/o Kumar Traders, Talwara Road, Daulatpur Chowk, Tehsil Amb, District Una HP-177204 Subject Recruitment to the posts of Lecturer (College Cadre) Commerce, Class-1 (Gazetted) backlog posts reserved for Physically Handicapped persons of H.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- in the Department of Higher Education, H.P. Sir/Madam, With reference to your application for the above mentioned posts your are advised to appear before the interview board on 30.7.2009 at 9:15 AM in the office of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission at Nigam Vihar, Shimla-171002 xxx xxx xxx 24. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussions made hereinabove, we see no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which is apparently based upon the correct appreciation of the facts as well as law and as such same is required to be upheld. 25. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.