ORDER : Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that in the year 2015, respondents-State advertised 504 posts of Constables (Male) in Police Department. Aforesaid 504 vacancies were further distributed District-wise on the basis of ratio of population of District and roster points for the purpose of recruitment. Respondents advertised 38 posts of Constables(Male) for Chamba District (Annexure A-1). Out of 38 posts, one post was reserved for Home Guard. Petitioner being fully qualified, applied for the post of Constable (Male) from the Home Guard quota and was called for Physical Efficiency Test. Petitioner scored 60 marks in ground test and written test and as such, was placed at number one in the merit list of candidates (Annexure A-2), whereas, person namely, Rakesh Kumar, son of Sh. Piar Chand, who scored 58 marks, was kept at Sl. No.2 in the merit list. After circulation of aforesaid merit list of candidates, candidates as per their merit were called for Personality Test. Petitioner was awarded 6.50 marks in Personality Test, as a consequence of which, his total score came out to be 66.50 marks, whereas, person namely Rakesh Kumar, son of Sh. Piar Chand, was awarded 9 marks in Personality Test, as a result of which, his total score came to be 67 marks and he being higher in merit was offered appointment against the post of Constable reserved for Home Guard. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of Rakesh Kumar, son of Sh. Piar Chand, against the post kept reserved for the Home Guard quota, petitioner approached erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application bearing No.5436 of 2015, which is now stand transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No. 6508/2019, praying therein following main relief :- 1. “That respondents may be directed to offer appointment to the post of Constable (Male) from Chamba District under category of General Home Guard from the date other persons have been appointed, with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, arrears etc.” 2. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been raised in the instant petition, is that since petitioner stood first in overall merit, there was no occasion for Interview Committee to grant marks, if any, in the name of Personality Test. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been raised in the instant petition, is that since petitioner stood first in overall merit, there was no occasion for Interview Committee to grant marks, if any, in the name of Personality Test. Further grievance of the petitioner is that since 3 posts were reserved for the Home Guard quota, respondents ought to have offered appointment to the petitioner being second in the merit list. Reply filed on behalf of respondents clearly reveals that though out of 38 posts, 3 posts were kept reserved for Home Guard quota, but since, two persons namely Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar were to be accommodated against two posts reserved for Home Guard, in terms of directions contained in the judgment dated 04.08.2014, passed by this Court in CWPOA No.6608 of 2010, (Annexure A-3), only one post was kept reserved for Home Guard quota, in the selection process initiated by the respondents. Careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment dated 04.08.2014, passed by this Court reveals that persons namely Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar had approached this Court against their non-selection in the selection process held during the year 2010 against 15% quota meant for the category of Home Guard. In the aforesaid proceedings, this Court while allowing the petition having been filed by persons named hereinabove, directed respondents No.1 & 2 to offer appointment to the petitioners as police constables in the respondent-department against existing vacancies, if any, latest by 31.10.2014 and in case no such vacancies are presently available, then against the first two available vacancies likely to occur in the department in near future. Since there was no existing vacancies available on 31.10.2014, respondents while initiating fresh process for selection of Constables, kept two posts reserved for petitioners as mentioned in the case i.e. CWP No.6608 of 2010. 3. Bare perusal of Annexure A-1, whereby as per distribution, 38 posts were to be filled up from District Chamba on population percentage basis out of 504 posts of Constables (Male), itself suggests that though 3 posts were shown to be kept reserved for Home Guard category, but only selection process qua one post was initiated. 3. Bare perusal of Annexure A-1, whereby as per distribution, 38 posts were to be filled up from District Chamba on population percentage basis out of 504 posts of Constables (Male), itself suggests that though 3 posts were shown to be kept reserved for Home Guard category, but only selection process qua one post was initiated. There is specific note given in the aforesaid Annexue that two posts of Police Constables (Male) from Home Guard quota have already been earmarked vide letter dated 27.01.20215, for providing employment to Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar, in terms of directions contained in judgment dated 04.08.2014, passed by this Court in CWP No.6608 of 2010. Once, there was specific note with regard to appointment of two persons namely Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar against two posts out of three posts kept reserved for Home Guard quota, there is otherwise no occasion for petitioner to agitate, at this stage that respondents while initiating process for 38 posts of Constables (Male) in District Chamba could not earmark two posts for persons namely Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar. Since, petitioner despite having taken note of aforesaid note given in (Annexure A-1), participated in the selection process, he cannot be permitted to raise plea at this stage that department could not have alloted two seats to persons namely Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar without their having participated in the selection process initiated in the year 2015 vide (Annexure A-1). Since, there was positive directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 6608 of 2010 to the respondents-State to offer appointment to the petitioners in that case against first two available vacancies likely to occur in the department in near future, no fault, if any, can be said to have committed by respondents while offering appointment against two posts of Constables out of three posts kept reserved for Home Guard category to the persons namely Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar. Similarly, this Court finds that though petitioner had scored 60 marks in total, i.e. 5 marks in height and 55 marks in written test and as such, he was shown at number one of the merit list compiled by the department for inviting candidates for interview, but since, he could only score 6.50 marks in Personality Test, his overall marks came to be 66.50, which were admittedly less than other candidate namely Rakesh Kumar, son of Sh. Piar Chand, who though scored 58 marks before interview, i.e. two marks in height and 56 marks in written test, but in interview/physical personality test, he was awarded 9 marks. As per instructions contained in Para-1 of Recruitment procedure laid down in the Rule appendix 12. 12- A, notified vide H.P. Government Notification dated 11.03.2011 (Annexure R-2), there is provision for conducting Personality Test of the candidates, who clear the ground test and written test. As per Rule 12.1, All Committee Members shall award marks to each candidate and thereafter average of the marks awarded to a candidate (up to 2 decimal points) will be treated as marks awarded in the Personality Test. 4. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the action of respondents while selecting person namely Rakesh Kumar, son of Sh. Piar Chand against one post kept reserved for Home Guard quota. Similarly, action of respondents in offering appointment against two posts out of three posts kept reserved for Home Guard quota to the persons namely Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar cannot be said to be illegal, especially, when it stands duly established on record that such procedure was adopted by the department with a view to implement the judgment dated 04.08.2014, passed by this Court in CWP No.6608 of 2010, whereby, specific direction was granted to respondents to offer appointment to above-named persons Sh. Kewal Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar against the existing vacancies, if not possible, then against first two available vacancies likely to be occurred in the department in near future. Present petition fails and dismissed, accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any.