1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11544 of 2011-E Decided on: 29.12.2011 Smt. Kalpna, W/o Sh. Pushpender Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Behna, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Mandi, presently posted as JBT on Contract basis in Government Primary School Ubba, District Mandi, H.P. ....Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary (Education), Government of H.P. Shimla-171 002 2. Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171 001. 5. Deputy Director of Elementary Education Mandi, Distt. Mandi, (HP). ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayer:- 2 (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to offer regular appointment instead of contract appointment as JBT to the petitioner at par with her counter-parts of the session 2005 with all financial benefits such as arrear of pay etc. etc. and also other consequential benefits. (ii) That the impugned order dated 30th Dec. 2010 (Annexure P-7 passed by Respondent No. 3 Dy. Director of Elc. Edu. Mandi H.P. conveying non approval/rejection of regular appointment of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.10.2011, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1170 of 2010, titled as Bhawana Sharma versus State of H.P. & others. 3. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to examine the case of the petitioner herein and extend a similar treatment to her also as extended to the petitioner in the judgment, referred to above, in case she is similarly situated to the petitioner in the judgment, cited herein above. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the judgment, referred to above and 3 a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the second respondent. 4. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 29, 2011 (Justice Dev Dasrshan Sud), ( ms/hl) Judge.