IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP -T No. 2582/2008 Decided on:12.11.2010 _____________________________________________ Non Singh Negi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 ands 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.5, 7, 8, 9 and 12. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). According to Mr. P.P. Chauhan, case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the instructions issued by the respondent-State vide Annexure A-25 dated 13.11.2003. However, Mr. Dilip Sharma submits that this question is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 others (II) versus State of Punjab and others, (1999) 7 SCC 209. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent-State to consider the case of petitioner in view of instructions dated 13.11.2003 alongwith principles laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited hereinabove within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Respondent-State shall pass a speaking/reasoned order. It is made clear that the petitioner and private respondents shall also be heard in person before taking a final decision. In order to balance the equities, it is made clear that rights, which have accrued to the private respondents, shall not be withdrawn at this belated stage and the respondent-State will explore the possibilities of creating supernumerary posts, if needed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 12.11.2010 *awasthi*