IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3949 of 2011 Decided on: 11th July, 2011. Gian Chand. Petitioner Versus HRTC and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) That the selections of respondents No.2 to 5 as ‘Bus Sahayaks’ against Wards of General (Freedom Fighters) as per merit list, Annexure P-8 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That if during the pendency of writ petition, respondents No.2 to 5 are appointed as Bus Sahayaks on the basis of impugned merit list, in that event their appointments may also be quashed and set aside. (iii)That the respondent Corporation may be directed to redraw the merit list of Wards of General (Freedom Fighters) in the light of instructions dated 14.5.1997, Annexure P-1/1 by giving preference to sons over grand sons of Freedom Fighters. (iv) That if as a result of redrawing the merit list against the category of Wards of Freedom Fighters as per instructions dated 14.5.1997, the petitioner is found entitled to be appointed as Bus Sahayak, in that 2 event respondent No.1 may be directed to appoint the petitioner as Bus Sahayak from the date, respondents No.2 to 5 may have been appointed, with all consequential benefits.” 2. In the reply, it is stated at para 13 as follows: “13. That the contents of para No.13 are admitted to the extent that respondent No.2 to 5 have been selected against vacancies reserved for Freedom Fighters on the basis of merit having scored 77, 77, 59 and 48 marks respectively, whereas petitioner obtained 39 marks only. However, the petitioner claim to consider him as per instructions of the State Govt. dated 14.5.1997 will be considered separately being son of Freedom Fighter against existing vacancy.” 3. In view of the above reply, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Corporation to take steps for the appointment of the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 11th July, 2011. (Justice V.K. Sharma), (tr) Judge. 3