IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 4737/2009 Date of decision: 5. 8. 2011 Vikas Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another. …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (Oral) The file of CWP No. 4674 of 2009 has been perused. It stands finally decided by the Principal Division Bench of this court on 6.5.2010 being bunch maters in CWP No. 3912 of 2009 wherein the claim of the petitioner was similar to the present one, i.e., for appointment on regular basis as TGT (Medical) and (Non medical). While allowing the above bunch petitions, the Principal Division Bench issued the following directions:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - “9. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider afresh the issue of appointment of the petitioners in the light of the contentions, as referred to above and pass orders in the matters in accordance with law and justice within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to make appropriate representation(s) in case they intend to make supplementary submissions other than that what we referred to above. We also make it clear that it will be open to those petitioners who have not yet joined duty, to join duty based on the offer of appointment on contract basis, subject to the outcome of the decision thus taken by the Government and needless to say without prejudice to their contentions”. 2. Since it is a covered matter, therefore, respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the similar lines as that of the other petitioners in CWP No. 3912 of 2009 and other connected matters and the petitioner herein is at liberty to make appropriate representation in case he intends to make supplementary submissions other than what he has mentioned in his petition. - 3 - 3. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. August 5, 2011 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)