IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1326 of 2009 Decided on : July 15, 2010 Dr. Farzand Mashi and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners : Mr. Adarsh Vashishta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Himanshu Kumar, Advocate vice counsel for respondent No.2. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. It has been pointed out that after the institution of the petition, two of the petitioners, i.e., petitioner No.3 Dr. Sunil Arora and petitioner No.4 Dr. Anju Gupta have resigned while services of two others, namely Dr. Farzand Masih (petitioner No.1) and Dr. Meeru Malik (petitioner No.2) have been terminated. It has also been pointed out that petitioners No.1 and 2, whose services have been terminated, have filed civil suit, challenging their termination. 3. In view of the aforesaid development, which has taken place during the pendency of the present writ petition, no effective …2… relief can be granted to petitioners No. 1 and 2. Therefore, present petition is dismissed. However, petitioners may include the cause of action, on which present writ petition is founded, in the suits they have already filed, by applying for amendment and this prayer of theirs, if made, shall not be opposed by respondents No. 4 and 5. 4. This Court, vide interim order dated 1.5.2009, made absolute on 8.9.2009, had directed that respondents No.4 and 5 may go ahead with the recruitment process, but shall not make appointments, without leave of the Court. This interim order stands vacated, in view of the dismissal of the main petition. However, it is ordered that when making appointments on the basis of selection against the posts, which were earlier held by petitioners No.1 and 2, it shall be clearly stated in the appointment letters that the appointments are subject to the final result of the two civil suits, which petitioners No. 1 and 2 have instituted. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. July 15, 2010 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J