IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 9293 of 2008. Decided on: 24.12.2010. _______________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Keshav S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): It is not in dispute that the present lis is covered by the judgment rendered by this in Sudarshan Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP(T) No.9291 of 2008, decided on 11th November, 2010. 2. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner to be validly made at par with those candidates, who were appointed on the basis of the select list, with all the consequential benefits, except 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - arrears of salary. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 24, 2010. (sck).