1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 9670 of 2008 along with CWP(T) No. 9677 of 2008 and CWP (T) No.9676 of 2008. Date of Decision: 8th December, 2010. 1. CWP(T) NO. 9670 of 2008 Vijay Kumar ……Petitioner Versus Y.S. Parmar University …..Respondent. 2. CWP(T) No. 9677 of 2008 Shalinder Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus Y.S. Parmar University ……Respondent. 3. CWP (T) No. 9676 of 2008. Dev Dutt …..Petitioner. Versus Y.S. Parmar University ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rupender Singh, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Question of law raised are similar, therefore, these petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by the Divisional Bench of this Court on 29th November, 2010 in CWP No. 7041 of 2010 titled as Ghan Shayam versus State of HP and others which is taken on record. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The facts undisputedly are similar. Petitioners were also given appointment on compensate grounds as peon though they were eligible for being considered for the appointment of Class-III post. 4. Relying upon its earlier decision in CWP (T) No. 15008 of 2008, this Court in Ghan Shayam’s case passed the following orders: “In view of the submissions of the petitioner that on facts, the petitioner is also similarly situated, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to look into the matter and to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, in the light also of the judgment, referred to above, after verifying the facts ignoring Annexure P-9. The needful, as above, shall be done within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment alongwith the copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent” 5. Consequently, directions given in Ghan Shayam’s case (supra) shall mutatis mutandis also be applicable to the case of present petitioners. Needful be done positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 6. With these observations, present petitions are dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol) Judge December 8, 2010 (Jai) 3