JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. In present appeal, filed by the defendant-Bank - appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant-Bank’), judgment and decree dated 26.12.2019, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No. 56-D/XII/2019, tilted as The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank v. Subhash Chand and another, whereby judgment and decree dated 27.5.2019, passed by Civil Judge-II, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 523 of 2013, titled as Subhash Chand v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank and another, has been affirmed partly, directing that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) is entitled for declaration that he is entitled for the post in the special drive against the quota of Ex-serviceman and the defendant-Bank shall, after ascertaining quota of Ex-serviceman and the vacant roster points available on that day when the posts were advertised for other categories, if any vacant roster point was available for Ex-serviceman, consider the plaintiff for appointment against that post as per Rules by giving him all consequential benefits, with further direction to the defendant- Bank to carry out such exercise within two months from the passing of the judgment and decree, i.e. 26.12.2019. 2. Defendant-Bank has filed the present appeal by proposing the following Substantial Questions of Law: “a. Whether the learned lower appellate court ignored the settled law that once a candidate had applied for the post under one category he cannot claim for the same post under any other category? b. Whether the learned lower appellate court being last court of fact has failed to consider the entire oral as well as documentary evidence and law applicable in this behalf, as the post for which plaintiff had put forward was to be advertised through Special Ex servicemen Cell in the labor and employment department of the State Government? c. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of statement of DW-1 Sh. Navneet Sharma?” 3. For request made on behalf of the parties, appeal has been heard at admission stage. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Plaintiff, who is an Ex-serviceman, is a Sub-Staff employee of the defendant-Bank and has been appointed against post meant for Ex-serviceman. Navneet Sharma?” 3. For request made on behalf of the parties, appeal has been heard at admission stage. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Plaintiff, who is an Ex-serviceman, is a Sub-Staff employee of the defendant-Bank and has been appointed against post meant for Ex-serviceman. Admittedly, in the posts of Grade- IV advertised by the defendant-Bank to be filled from amongst eligible Sub-Staff of the defendant-Bank under 15% quota (one time relaxation), governed by 200-Point Roster for reservation, not even a single post was advertised as post reserved for Exserviceman and in the Procedure and Application Form circulated vide Communication dated 2.6.2012 (Ex. P-7), there was no provision and/or Column in the Procedure or in Application Form to tick the category and sub-category as Ex-serviceman. In the categories mentioned in the Application Form, there are only four vertical categories, i.e. General, SC, ST, OBC, whereas in subcategory only category is PH-Ortho. Plaintiff being a General Category candidate, but an Ex-serviceman, thus, was having no other option but to mention his category as ‘General’. 6. Plaintiff made representation by issuing Legal Notice, under Section 72 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (Ex. P-8) to the defendant-Bank, asking the defendant-Bank to apply 200-Point Roster to the proposed Grade-IV posts to be filled from amongst the eligible Sub-Staff and to provide posts to the Exserviceman serving in the Sub-Staff. 7. Reply dated 10.12.2012 (Ex.P-10) to the aforesaid notice was given by defendant-Bank, stating therein that the Bank has conducted Limited Direct Recruitment for the posts of Grade- IV from amongst the eligible Sub-Staff and there is recognized Policy for the recruitment of candidates belonging to Exserviceman Category and further that as per Policy the posts reserved for Ex-serviceman shall have to be filled through sponsorship of the Ex-serviceman Cell. 8. Plea of the defendant-Bank is either misconceived or mischievous. Plaintiff has also placed on record Ex.P-12, an advertisement issued by H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board, Hamirpur, with respect to Limited Direct Recruitment to the post of Clerk from eligible Class-IV employees of various departments. Reservation of posts indicated in the said advertisement clearly depicts that in such recruitment posts of Ex-servicemen are to be identified and advertised/circulated enabling the in-service Ex-serviceman candidates to apply for those posts. Reservation of posts indicated in the said advertisement clearly depicts that in such recruitment posts of Ex-servicemen are to be identified and advertised/circulated enabling the in-service Ex-serviceman candidates to apply for those posts. No such posts were identified and advertised or provided by the defendant-Bank in the recruitment drive undertaken by it despite applicability of 200-Point Roster wherein posts for Ex-servicemen are identified. 9. Functioning of Special Cell of Ex-servicemen, sponsoring the names of Ex-servicemen for various Departments/Corporations/Boards/Bank etc., has been placed on record as Ex. DW-1/B, wherein it is provided that names registered in the Special Ex-servicemen Cell are required to be renewed after three years. Definitely, where a candidate is sponsored and is appointed in the Department/Corporation/ Board/Bank, there shall be no occasion or reason for renewal of his name in the Special Ex-serviceman Cell. Therefore, as recruitment process was initiated for in-service candidates and no requisition was sent to the Special Ex-servicemen Cell for sponsoring the names, rather it was not required as there was no occasion for the Ex-servicemen Cell to sponsor the names of Exserviceman candidates who are already serving with defendant- Bank. It is also noticeable that no posts were identified for Exservicemen in the recruitment process which is contrary to the Policy of the State as well as 200-Point Roster, which is stated to have been applied by the defendant-Bank for conducting the recruitment in reference. 10. DW-1 Shri Navneet Sharma, in his examination-in-chief, has reiterated that defendant-Bank conducted Limited Direct Recruitment for the post of Grade-IV from amongst the eligible Sub-Staff. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that with respect to these appointments no requisition was sent to Special Ex-servicemen Cell and in this recruitment process neither names were requisitioned from the Employment Exchanges nor any advertisement was given in the Newspaper, because these posts were to be filled from amongst in-service Sub-Cadre as it was a special recruitment process for the employees of Sub-cadre who had more than five years regular service with the Bank. He has admitted that for reservation of these posts 200-Point Roster was to be made applicable and in the Application Form circulated during recruitment process there is no Column for Ex-serviceman. He has also admitted that it has been mentioned in Ex. P-7 that for recruitment process 200-Point Roster was applied. He has admitted that posts meant for Ex-servicemen in the 200-Point Roster were kept vacant. He has also admitted that it has been mentioned in Ex. P-7 that for recruitment process 200-Point Roster was applied. He has admitted that posts meant for Ex-servicemen in the 200-Point Roster were kept vacant. 11. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the judgments and decrees, passed by the Courts below, are result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of statement of DW-1 Shri Navneet Sharma rather on perusal it has been found appreciated correctly. 12. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that despite applicability of 200-Point Roster and availability of vacant posts for Ex-servicemen as per the said Roster, there was no provision made in the Application Form to enable Ex-serviceman Sub-Staff employees to apply against the post meant for Ex-serviceman in the 200-Point Roster and further that for filling up posts from amongst in-service candidates names were not to be sponsored by the Special Ex-servicemen Cell but such posts were to be identified in the recruitment process and option to the Ex-serviceman in-service candidates was to be provided to apply against such posts and DW-1 Shri Navneet Sharma, in his statement, has admitted the aforesaid facts and procedure required to be adopted. 13. There is no illegality or perversity in impugned judgment and decree warranting framing of Substantial Questions of Law as proposed. 14. In view of above discussion, I find that no Question of Law, muchless Substantial Question of Law, is made out for admission and adjudication of the appeal. Consequently, judgment and decree dated 26.12.2019, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No. 56-D/XII/2019, tilted as The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank v. Subhash Chand and another, whereby judgment and decree dated 27.5.2019, passed by Civil Judge-II, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 523 of 2013, titled as Subhash Chand v. The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank and another, has been affirmed partly, is upheld, and the defendant-Bank is directed to complete the recruitment process on or before 30.6.2022. 15. The appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also pending application, if any.