STATE OF H.P. . vs RAVINDER BALORIA . — C.A. No. 633/2007
Case under Section XIV-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010026422006
Filing Date
27-Jan-2006
Registration No
C.A. No. 633/2007
Diary Number
2642/2006
Order Date
20-Sep-2011
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Disposed Off
Last updated 17-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF H.P. .
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAVINDER BALORIA .
Adv. RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON E. C. VIDYA SAGAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Sep-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jun-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Apr-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Mar-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Jan-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Dec-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Dec-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Jan-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Nov-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Oct-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Feb-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Jan-2006
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 633/2007
Case Summary: State of H.P. v. Ravinder Baloria Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal on September 20, 2011, setting aside the High Court's judgment regarding the 15 marks awarded for personal interviews in JBT course admissions. The Court held the interview weightage justified and not arbitrary, dismissing the respondents' challenge to it. Key Facts: Himachal Pradesh conducted a common entrance test for 1,800 Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) positions with marks distributed across written test, interview (15 marks), rural area bonus (10 marks), and other criteria. Ravinder Baloria challenged both the rural area bonus and interview weightage as unjustified. Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court distinguished between interview weightage for educational admissions versus recruitment, noting that JBT graduates received automatic state employment. The 15 interview marks were broken down objectively—5 marks for 10+2 scores, 5 for extracurricular activities, 2 for HP knowledge, and only 3 discretionary marks—with a high-level committee reducing arbitrariness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts