IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8653 of 2022 Date of Decision: 7.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Anupam ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary and H.R. Sidhu, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Short reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 through Director of School Education, clearly reveals that appointment of differently abled persons has been made as per government instructions issued from time to time. The Department of Personnel constituted Special Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of Director of Social Justice and Empowerment vide office order dated 26.12.2019 for selection of visually impaired Class-III and Class-IV categories against all fresh and backlog posts as is evident from office order dated 25.12.2019 (Annexure R-1). 2. Petitioner herein also participated in the selection process, but was not selected due to low in merit. 2 3. Though it has been vehemently claimed by Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner that since petitioner had successfully qualified the written test for the post of Lecturer (Political Science) in the year 2019 in terms of advertisement No. 22/2019 dated 10.12.2019, coupled with the fact that subsequently, in the year 2021, respondents constituted a Special Selection Committee for selection of persons with disabilities against all fresh and backlog posts, the petitioner herein is required to be considered for appointment against the backlog post, however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Chaudhary, for the reason that once it is not in dispute that in the year 2019, no post under disability quota was allocated to the Lecturer (Political Science), there was otherwise no occasion of the respondents, at the relevant time, to consider the petitioner against the post in question under disability quota. Since posts of differently abled persons were identified on 25.6.2021, therefore, same were not advertised in the year 2019, rather same came to be advertised in subsequent advertisement issued in the year 2021. It is only after identification of posts, respondents started selection process, advertising 60 posts of Lecturer (School New) including backlog in various subjects for differently abled persons and out of which, two posts were reserved for visually impaired persons in Political Science subject. 3 4. Once it is not in dispute that in the year 2021, petitioner appeared under the category of persons with disabilities for appointment against the post of Lecturer (Political Science), but she failed to secure place in merit, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while not considering her for appointment against the post in question. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. October 7, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge