IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 7889/2008 Decided on:14.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Jai Prakash and another. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Respondent-State initiated the process for filling up the posts of Craft Instructor (Electrician). Petitioners also participated in the selection process. Respondents have recommended the names of respondents No. 4 to 6. It has come in the reply that respondent No.5 has failed to produce CTI certificate and consequently recommendations made qua him were withdrawn by the State vide letter dated 7.9.2001 as a result of which one post became available. It has also come in the reply that two candidates for appointment against these posts were 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 recommended and third candidate was also to be recommended if required by the requisitioning department. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in para 7(iii) of the reply, respondents are directed to consider the case of the candidates as per the merit list drawn at the time of the selection process for filling up the post of Craft Instructor (Electrician) against the third post. In case petitioners’ names also find mention in the panel, the appointment letter will be issued to them as per the merit. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 14.7.2010 *awasthi*