1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 9729 of 2011-C Decided on: 16.11.2011 Aman Kumar Dogra & others .....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers:- “i) That the respondents No. 1 & 2 may very kindly be directed to consider the case of the present petitioners for posting them to their home districts (Kangra) keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned in the present writ petition & in view of the recruitment and promotion rules (Annexure P-8) 2 & also keeping in view the fact tht the post of JBT Teacher being a class-III, Non Gazetted, District cadre post, while issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus with further direction to the respondents to place the petitioners at the appropriate place in the list, which has been prepared by them as per their own merit, as also keeping in view that the less meritorious candidates( Annexure P-9 etc.) have been posted in their home district or as per their option, keeping in view of the judgment (Annexure P-10 dated 20.10.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP 7667/2011 etc. titled as Amit Thakur versus state of H.P. and ors. ii) That during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent No. 2 may be directed to shift the petitioners to their home districts, as 210 posts lying vacant in district Kangra (Annexure P-11 RTI information dated 17.06.2011).” 2. According to the petitioners, they are similarly situated as the petitioners in the judgment, Annexure P-10, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 7667 of 2011, titled as Amit Thakur versus State of H.P. & others & other connected matters. 3. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to examine the case of the petitioners herein, in case they are similarly situated to the petitioners in the 3 judgment, cited herein above and take appropriate action in the matter in the light of the judgment, referred to above, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the judgment, referred to above and a copy of the writ petition by the petitioners before the second respondent. 4. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Authenticated copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 16, 2011 (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (sck/hl) Judge.