Kurian Joseph, C.J.@mdashAt the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Chairman, HP Public Service Commission is deleted from the party array and the Secretary, HP Public Service Commission is arrayed as the first Respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
I. To quash the entire selections (Annexure P-15 & P-16) of 58 candidates of general category which is already included in the recommendations of total 84 candidates for the post of Horticulture Development Officer and the recommendations so made sent to the Respondent No. 2 as the selections of general category candidates made were unfair, illegal, by adopting pick and choose methods and ignoring the higher qualifications and experience.
II. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued restraining the Respondent No. 2 from issuing any appointment letter to the selected candidates in case not already issued or in the alternative the Respondent No. 1 be directed to keep one post of Horticulture Development Officer vacant for the Petitioner and in case the Petitioner found eligible and on merits after calling for the record, be selected as per merit.
III. That alternatively the Respondent Commission may kindly be directed to recommend the name of the Petitioner with the other selected candidate as per his qualification and experience.
IV. That the entire record pertaining to the case more particularly the criteria/merit list prepared by the Respondent-Commission in respect of selection of Horticulture Development Officer may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court.
2. It is seen that none of the affected parties is on the party array. Be that as it may. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Commission to look into Annexure P-14, representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law in the matter, if necessary in consultation with the Government.
3. Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr. Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission. There will be a direction to the Commission to look into Annexure P-14 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the Petitioner. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the contentions of the parties and all the contentions are left open.
4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.
