IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 9042 of 2011-E along with connected matters. Decided on: 22nd November, 2011. 1. CWP No. 9042 of 2011-E. Hem Raj. vs. State of H.P & anr. 2. CWP No. 9043 of 2011-E. Unnas Mohd. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 3. CWP No. 9056 of 2011-F. Rajinder Pal. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions filed with the following prayers: “A. That this writ petition may kindly be allowed and writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and the impugned order contained in Annexure P-6 dated 23.9.2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. That the writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued and the respondent department be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner on completion of 8 years of service as it has been done in the case of other teachers, with all consequential benefits.” 2. According to the petitioners, in terms of the policy, they are entitled for regularization on completion of eight 2 years of contract service. It is further submitted that many teachers, who have completed eight years service have been regularized in service. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court dated 30.8.2011 rendered in CWP No. 7583 of 2010 titled as Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. and another. 3. There will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioners herein in the light of decision, referred to above, in case the petitioners herein are also similarly situated as the petitioner in the above referred decision, and take appropriate action in the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 22nd November, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (tr) Judge. 3